(02-24-2012 09:27 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 08:56 AM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  I believe basketball has hurt us a lot to be totally honest. That still doesn't explain why we haven't even gotten a FB only invite.

Why didn't the Big East invite Ohio University, or Toledo, or Miami, OH, or Southern Miss, or Marshall, or U.A.B., or Delaware, or Villanova, or UMass or a few other schools? What separates ECU from those schools? Football attendance ok, but what else? Why isn't anyone talking about how those schools were shafted by the Big East by not being invited?

The BE had two things going on. First the BCS thing so Boise was a necessity as were the best possible western partners. For anyone else, the BE talked to television advisors and were told who offered value. ECU was not one of the schools that was in the "adds value" mix-just as the schools above were not included--all meet some criteria for BE inclusion better, some things not as good as ECU but none were invited, not just ECU.

I personally think this opinion is being abused as a fact. If you added "In my opinion, ECU was not one of the schools that added as much value (ie market) as those selected ahead of them", then you'd have a much more realistic statement. The wording before implies something totally different and knowing the poster's history...it's just a way to slam ECU.

(02-24-2012 09:35 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 09:27 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 08:56 AM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  I believe basketball has hurt us a lot to be totally honest. That still doesn't explain why we haven't even gotten a FB only invite.

Why didn't the Big East invite Ohio University, or Toledo, or Miami, OH, or Southern Miss, or Marshall, or U.A.B., or Delaware, or Villanova, or UMass or a few other schools? What separates ECU from those schools? Football attendance ok, but what else? Why isn't anyone talking about how those schools were shafted by the Big East by not being invited?

The BE had two things going on. First the BCS thing so Boise was a necessity as were the best possible western partners. For anyone else, the BE talked to television advisors and were told who offered value. ECU was not one of the schools that was in the "adds value" mix-just as the schools above were not included--all meet some criteria for BE inclusion better, some things not as good as ECU but none were invited, not just ECU.

I personally think this opinion is being abused as a fact. If you added "In my opinion, ECU was not one of the schools that added as much value (ie market) as those selected ahead of them", then you'd have a much more realistic statement. The wording before implies something totally different and knowing the poster's history...it's just a way to slam ECU.

You can do the same thing in the opposite. ECU posters should be saying things like "In my opinion, ECU got shafted by the Big East, in my opinion ECU adds as much value as the schools added ahead of us, in my opinion ECU's market should be able to be expanded beyond Greenville while no other schools market should get the same consideration". Then you'd have a much more realistic statement. Knowing the history of many ECU poster's, not saying these things is just a way to falsely promote ECU and falsely suggest ECU was somehow deserving of something and "done wrong" in comparison to other schools.

(02-24-2012 07:45 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 08:16 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Seriously, we've explained the reasons ECU hasn't been at the top of the list ad nauseum, starting with NC being oversaturated already. Having said that, the time for Holland to call Marinara and beg is now. The BE seems pretty desperate to get an 8th team for 2012. Start the call with "we'll pay whatever it takes to get out of CUSA for the 2012 season."

I think the #1 reason we've been passed over is the DMA issue, which as you said has been discussed over and over...

But I don't get the "NC is over-saturated" argument. If NC is over-saturated, how does a 5-7 non-AQ school average 50,012 fans per game?

That number would lead the nBE. Do people expect that that interest would go down if we were to enter the nBE? Surely it would go up!

Couple of points in response.

First, ECU would be a fine addition to the BE. However, there are only a limited number of slots and there are other good candidates. The conference has to make its selections based upon something. The conference has historically focused on urban universities in large TV markets. It should not be surprising that it has applied this philosophy in its latest round of expansion

With respect to saturation, while solid attendance suggests that ECU has a committed following, it does not address the overall market share of ECU in the state of North Carolina. UNC and NCSU both averaged around 56,000 for 2011, Wake 32,000 and Dook 24,000. Even as a simple percentage of total FBS attendance, ECU is less than a 25% marketshare in NC.

Adding ECU means adding what would be the 5th AQ program (or equivalent) in NC. Looking at some of the other expansion candidates, SDSU will be the 5th AQ in California, UCF will be the 5th AQ in Florida, Temple would be the 3rd AQ in Pennsylvania, and Memphis will be the 3rd AQ in Tennessee. All but Tennessee are larger states than NC. UH and SMU will be the 6th and 7th AQ schools in Texas, but Texas is also obviously quite a bit larger than NC.

In addition to potential fanbase, any given state has a finite number of quality recruits. I would argue that the NC schools are already hurt badly in recruiting by oversaturation with 4 BCS AQ schools in NC. Larger states obviously have proportionately more good recruits. Texas and Florida are incredible hotbeds of recruiting with a share of talent that is disproportionate even to their large relative sizes.

A curious hypothetical would be what if ECU were located in Charlotte (or stated alternatively, what if UNCC had ECU's football program)? UNCC and ECU are virtually the same size and have essentially the same academic profile (the same USNWR rank and Carnegie classification). Would this change the outcome based on location in a larger TV market?

Aquinas Institute of Theology (MO)

I vote for this school as the next BE expansion target....

(02-24-2012 09:41 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 09:35 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 09:27 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 08:56 AM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  I believe basketball has hurt us a lot to be totally honest. That still doesn't explain why we haven't even gotten a FB only invite.

Why didn't the Big East invite Ohio University, or Toledo, or Miami, OH, or Southern Miss, or Marshall, or U.A.B., or Delaware, or Villanova, or UMass or a few other schools? What separates ECU from those schools? Football attendance ok, but what else? Why isn't anyone talking about how those schools were shafted by the Big East by not being invited?

The BE had two things going on. First the BCS thing so Boise was a necessity as were the best possible western partners. For anyone else, the BE talked to television advisors and were told who offered value. ECU was not one of the schools that was in the "adds value" mix-just as the schools above were not included--all meet some criteria for BE inclusion better, some things not as good as ECU but none were invited, not just ECU.

I personally think this opinion is being abused as a fact. If you added "In my opinion, ECU was not one of the schools that added as much value (ie market) as those selected ahead of them", then you'd have a much more realistic statement. The wording before implies something totally different and knowing the poster's history...it's just a way to slam ECU.

You can do the same thing in the opposite. ECU posters should be saying things like "In my opinion, ECU got shafted by the Big East, in my opinion ECU adds as much value as the schools added ahead of us, in my opinion ECU's market should be able to be expanded beyond Greenville while no other schools market should get the same consideration". Then you'd have a much more realistic statement. Knowing the history of many ECU poster's, not saying these things is just a way to falsely promote ECU and falsely suggest ECU was somehow deserving of something and "done wrong" in comparison to other schools.

But that didn't happen in the post in which you responded. And you are responsible for your own posts...in which you seamingly admit to doing what you did, yet never correct yourself and venture out to point fingers about how others do the same...all coupled with the "not gonna unless everyone else conforms first attitude."

It's neither here nor there. If you don't like what they do, then why post the same way yourself?

If UL leaves the BE, Cincy won't be far behind which will bring the BE down to

Rutgers, UConn(who both might be on their way to the ACC), Navy, Temple(all but done), UCF, USF, SMU, Houston, Memphis, SD ST & Boise St.

I believe the BE will then simple add the rest of the MWC for football only

Fresno, Hawaii, Wyoming, AFA, CSU, NM, Nevada & UNLV.

Adding all of them for football only will preserse the MWC as a hoops centered league and make the transition to the BE much easier as the western teams won't have to find a new league to put their hoops and olympic sports into.

Bad news for ECU but I can understand why the BE would do this; add teams in new markets( Denver, Central/Northern CAL) or in cities that host bowl games (Hawaii, New Mexico, Las Vegas)

Add the teams I've mentioned and there will be a BE team in a host city of 16 of the current 35 bowl games; pretty attractive for a TV network and a conference looking to max out on a new TV contract.

where would Cincy go to? Louisville would be going with BYU. Don't really see the Big 12(err, Texas) agreeing to go over 12 for the forseeable future.

(02-24-2012 09:50 AM)onlinepole Wrote:  If UL leaves the BE, Cincy won't be far behind which will bring the BE down to

Rutgers, UConn(who both might be on their way to the ACC), Navy, Temple(all but done), UCF, USF, SMU, Houston, Memphis, SD ST & Boise St.

I believe the BE will then simple add the rest of the MWC for football only

Fresno, Hawaii, Wyoming, AFA, CSU, NM, Nevada & UNLV.

Adding all of them for football only will preserse the MWC as a hoops centered league and make the transition to the BE much easier as the western teams won't have to find a new league to put their hoops and olympic sports into.

Bad news for ECU but I can understand why the BE would do this; add teams in new markets( Denver, Central/Northern CAL) or in cities that host bowl games (Hawaii, New Mexico, Las Vegas)

Add the teams I've mentioned and there will be a BE team in a host city of 16 of the current 35 bowl games; pretty attractive for a TV network and a conference looking to max out on a new TV contract.

Where's Cincy going? Pretty sure if the ACC wanted Rutgers and UConn they'd be in - maybe one gets in the ACC if the Irish join, but both won't be going.

It's not that difficult to figure out: Most BE teams have little interest in playing in North Carolina. Outside the research triangle, NC is culturally a much different place than the Midwest or the Northeast.

Universities sponsor sports for three reasons: to connect with alumni, recruit new students, and build a brand name.
1) UC has 254,000 living alumni. Of these, only 3,537 are in North Carolina, almost all of whom are in Charlotte or Raleigh. So ECU doesn't help with that.
2) How many kids from NC end up going north for college? If they do, they're probably going to an elite private school, not a sprawling state school. And it's not going to be a Catholic school, since NC is only 9% Catholic.
3) This just leave brand name. One way to build brand name is by playing other Brand Names (even without success, see Baylor or Wake Forest for how it works). Is ECU recognized as a national brand name? No. Navy, Boise, and Memphis are Brand Names. Even Houston and SMU have much better brand recognition (from their days in the SWC). UCF and SDSU might not have better brands than ECU, but they are located in areas that help us with recruiting students and reconnecting with alums (SDSU is a stretch for UC, but they help Boise and Navy tremendously).

Perhaps if WVU was still in the league, your little rivalry with them would have gotten you in. But the rest of us just have little interest in playing ECU.

Quite frankly, I wonder why ECU fans have such an interest in playing us. We don't help you connect with new students or alumni any more than you help us.

Are kids in Southern California, Central Florida, and the Metroplex seriously going to consider applying to Rutgers, Cincinnati or Providence just because you share an athletic conference? That might hold true for a geographically sensible league, but not in a case of the far flung Big East.

(02-24-2012 10:05 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  Are kids in Southern California, Central Florida, and the Metroplex seriously going to consider applying to Rutgers, Cincinnati or Providence just because you share an athletic conference? That might hold true for a geographically sensible league, but not in a case of the far flung Big East.

You can say the same about any of the conferences now.
ACC- kid in Boston considering applying to FSU?
Big 12- kid in WV considering applying to BYU now?
SEC- kid in Texas considering applying to Kentucky?
etc.

(02-24-2012 09:57 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Quite frankly, I wonder why ECU fans have such an interest in playing us. We don't help you connect with new students or alumni any more than you help us.

Actually it probably would help us connect with new students. We have a very high number of students every year who enroll at ECU from all over the north-east. The highest number seems to be from New Jersey and the Philly area. Not to mention there is a huge and ever growing population of north eastern transplants in North Carolina. So yes being in a conference based on the east coast and specifically the north east actually would help us connect with an ever growing student population base.

In the ACC's case it actually happened. New England kids started applying to ACC schools in higher numbers and high school students in ACC states started looking at Boston College.

http://www.boston.com/news/education/hig...?page=full

(02-24-2012 09:46 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 09:41 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 09:35 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 09:27 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 08:56 AM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  I believe basketball has hurt us a lot to be totally honest. That still doesn't explain why we haven't even gotten a FB only invite.

Why didn't the Big East invite Ohio University, or Toledo, or Miami, OH, or Southern Miss, or Marshall, or U.A.B., or Delaware, or Villanova, or UMass or a few other schools? What separates ECU from those schools? Football attendance ok, but what else? Why isn't anyone talking about how those schools were shafted by the Big East by not being invited?

The BE had two things going on. First the BCS thing so Boise was a necessity as were the best possible western partners. For anyone else, the BE talked to television advisors and were told who offered value. ECU was not one of the schools that was in the "adds value" mix-just as the schools above were not included--all meet some criteria for BE inclusion better, some things not as good as ECU but none were invited, not just ECU.

I personally think this opinion is being abused as a fact. If you added "In my opinion, ECU was not one of the schools that added as much value (ie market) as those selected ahead of them", then you'd have a much more realistic statement. The wording before implies something totally different and knowing the poster's history...it's just a way to slam ECU.

You can do the same thing in the opposite. ECU posters should be saying things like "In my opinion, ECU got shafted by the Big East, in my opinion ECU adds as much value as the schools added ahead of us, in my opinion ECU's market should be able to be expanded beyond Greenville while no other schools market should get the same consideration". Then you'd have a much more realistic statement. Knowing the history of many ECU poster's, not saying these things is just a way to falsely promote ECU and falsely suggest ECU was somehow deserving of something and "done wrong" in comparison to other schools.

But that didn't happen in the post in which you responded. And you are responsible for your own posts...in which you seamingly admit to doing what you did, yet never correct yourself and venture out to point fingers about how others do the same...all coupled with the "not gonna unless everyone else conforms first attitude."

It's neither here nor there. If you don't like what they do, then why post the same way yourself?

Well let's take a look at it. You take offense at me restating that ECU didn't add value as compared to the schools taken ahead of them. There are articles on places like CBS sports and elsewhere where sportswriters state that they have been told the schools being added were the schools that television partners said added value. If I restate this, you say it should be written as "in my opinion". It isn't my opinion. It is what the BE was told by television partners. Further evidence--the Big East didn't invite ECU and did invite many other schools.


On the other hand we have your -and other ECU posters personal opinion that this can't be true. Nothing to back that up. You state things like "ECU is being shafted by the Big East"--again nothing to back this up other than a misguided belief that the Big East is purposefully overlooking what must surely be their best option just for the purpose of intentionally shafting ECU or other such thought.

The Big East didn't invite ECU--they didn't invite many schools. The ones they did invite were considered by those that made the decision to be more valuable. Not my opinion--the opinion of those that made the decision to add schools not named ECU.

2012 - BE has the 8 full member they need for FBS with Temple.

2013 - They add 4 full members to get to 12 for FB and Memphis and Temple replace the BB of Syracuse and Pitt. If UL leaves for B12, then its 11 for FB for 2013-2014, and 12 in 2015 when USNA joins.

2013-2015 - Assuming UL leaves in 2013 and including USNA in 2015, BE will have 7 teams in EST timezone, 3 in CST, 1 MST and 1 PST, so any moves to 12 to replace UL - needs to be in CST, MST or PCT, and it will be TV market driven (UNLV is biggest untapped market, then Tulane (NO LA), and then Tulsa). Even adding ones of those still will leave it unbalance at 7 (East) and 5 (Central-West) but USNA plays a national schedule so they could easily go to West division.

After that, any moves to 14 or 16 will need to be 3 CST/MST/PCT and 1 EST to end up with 8 (East) and 8 (CST/MST and PCT) and, frankly, with 16 you can go to 4-team TV-scheduling pods, so you'd want the 8 east divided North (UConn, RU, TU, USNA) and South (USF, UCF, UC and [ECU?]) and East (SMU, HOU, MEMP, [Tulane?]) and West (BSU, SDSU, [UNLV?], and [Tulsa?]).

Of course all of this assumes there will still be a BE in 2015 which is by no means a foregone conclusion.

(02-24-2012 10:35 AM)KevinSmith Wrote:  2012 - BE has the 8 full member they need for FBS with Temple.

2013 - They add 4 full members to get to 12 for FB and Memphis and Temple replace the BB of Syracuse and Pitt. If UL leaves for B12, then its 11 for FB for 2013-2014, and 12 in 2015 when USNA joins.

2013-2015 - Assuming UL leaves in 2013 and including USNA in 2015, BE will have 7 teams in EST timezone, 3 in CST, 1 MST and 1 PST, so any moves to 12 to replace UL - needs to be in CST, MST or PCT, and it will be TV market driven (UNLV is biggest untapped market, then Tulane (NO LA), and then Tulsa). Even adding ones of those still will leave it unbalance at 7 (East) and 5 (Central-West) but USNA plays a national schedule so they could easily go to West division.

After that, any moves to 14 or 16 will need to be 3 CST/MST/PCT and 1 EST to end up with 8 (East) and 8 (CST/MST and PCT) and, frankly, with 16 you can go to 4-team TV-scheduling pods, so you'd want the 8 east divided North (UConn, RU, TU, USNA) and South (USF, UCF, UC and [ECU?]) and East (SMU, HOU, MEMP, [Tulane?]) and West (BSU, SDSU, [UNLV?], and [Tulsa?]).

Of course all of this assumes there will still be a BE in 2015 which is by no means a foregone conclusion.

Question for the BE is whether to stay at 12 or move to 14 for fb.

14 requires splitting the TV pie further, so any additions need to add TV value.

12 leaves the divisions in an undesirable state. E: UConn, RU, TU, Navy, USF, UCF W: BSU, SDSU, SMU, UH, Memphis, UC. Breaking the divisions on an East-West basis make tremendous sense for travel reasons.

My suggestion would be to go to 14 with 2 addition football only western partners: AFA plus your choise of Fresno, Nevada or UNLV. AFA makes a reasonable travel distance for the UH-SMU-Memphis pod and the west coast pod. A third west coast school ensures one road trip a year in the same time zone for BSU and SDSU. Fresno, Nevada or UNLV are geographically between BSU and SDSU.

The western additions would actually help with TV. Saturday 10 pm frequently lacks a high quality national game, and would face much less competition than earlier games. Friday at 9 pm or 10 pm also could become a good slot to place games with even less competition.

For hoops, I'd suggest working with the WAC to turn it into a Friends of the Big East Conference. Move SDSU to the WAC. Then you have BSU, SDSU, AFA and FSU/Nev/UNLV for 4. Hoops only Denver becomes a travel partner for AFA. Seattle should stay on (although could be a long term target for the WCC). Could also hold on to SJSU, NMSU or other WAC football schools for their hoops if they move to the SBC or Mount USA for football only.

(02-24-2012 10:13 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 09:46 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 09:41 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 09:35 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 09:27 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  Why didn't the Big East invite Ohio University, or Toledo, or Miami, OH, or Southern Miss, or Marshall, or U.A.B., or Delaware, or Villanova, or UMass or a few other schools? What separates ECU from those schools? Football attendance ok, but what else? Why isn't anyone talking about how those schools were shafted by the Big East by not being invited?

The BE had two things going on. First the BCS thing so Boise was a necessity as were the best possible western partners. For anyone else, the BE talked to television advisors and were told who offered value. ECU was not one of the schools that was in the "adds value" mix-just as the schools above were not included--all meet some criteria for BE inclusion better, some things not as good as ECU but none were invited, not just ECU.

I personally think this opinion is being abused as a fact. If you added "In my opinion, ECU was not one of the schools that added as much value (ie market) as those selected ahead of them", then you'd have a much more realistic statement. The wording before implies something totally different and knowing the poster's history...it's just a way to slam ECU.

You can do the same thing in the opposite. ECU posters should be saying things like "In my opinion, ECU got shafted by the Big East, in my opinion ECU adds as much value as the schools added ahead of us, in my opinion ECU's market should be able to be expanded beyond Greenville while no other schools market should get the same consideration". Then you'd have a much more realistic statement. Knowing the history of many ECU poster's, not saying these things is just a way to falsely promote ECU and falsely suggest ECU was somehow deserving of something and "done wrong" in comparison to other schools.

But that didn't happen in the post in which you responded. And you are responsible for your own posts...in which you seamingly admit to doing what you did, yet never correct yourself and venture out to point fingers about how others do the same...all coupled with the "not gonna unless everyone else conforms first attitude."

It's neither here nor there. If you don't like what they do, then why post the same way yourself?

Well let's take a look at it. You take offense at me restating that ECU didn't add value as compared to the schools taken ahead of them. There are articles on places like CBS sports and elsewhere where sportswriters state that they have been told the schools being added were the schools that television partners said added value. If I restate this, you say it should be written as "in my opinion". It isn't my opinion. It is what the BE was told by television partners. Further evidence--the Big East didn't invite ECU and did invite many other schools.


On the other hand we have your -and other ECU posters personal opinion that this can't be true. Nothing to back that up. You state things like "ECU is being shafted by the Big East"--again nothing to back this up other than a misguided belief that the Big East is purposefully overlooking what must surely be their best option just for the purpose of intentionally shafting ECU or other such thought.

The Big East didn't invite ECU--they didn't invite many schools. The ones they did invite were considered by those that made the decision to be more valuable. Not my opinion--the opinion of those that made the decision to add schools not named ECU.

You twist so many things out of context. Not only that, you say I said things I never did.

I've only said that the Big East selected schools based on those they felt had the most value, not just schools that had value. You imply they selected only the ones that had any value.

(02-24-2012 10:58 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 10:13 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 09:46 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 09:41 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 09:35 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  I personally think this opinion is being abused as a fact. If you added "In my opinion, ECU was not one of the schools that added as much value (ie market) as those selected ahead of them", then you'd have a much more realistic statement. The wording before implies something totally different and knowing the poster's history...it's just a way to slam ECU.

You can do the same thing in the opposite. ECU posters should be saying things like "In my opinion, ECU got shafted by the Big East, in my opinion ECU adds as much value as the schools added ahead of us, in my opinion ECU's market should be able to be expanded beyond Greenville while no other schools market should get the same consideration". Then you'd have a much more realistic statement. Knowing the history of many ECU poster's, not saying these things is just a way to falsely promote ECU and falsely suggest ECU was somehow deserving of something and "done wrong" in comparison to other schools.

But that didn't happen in the post in which you responded. And you are responsible for your own posts...in which you seamingly admit to doing what you did, yet never correct yourself and venture out to point fingers about how others do the same...all coupled with the "not gonna unless everyone else conforms first attitude."

It's neither here nor there. If you don't like what they do, then why post the same way yourself?

Well let's take a look at it. You take offense at me restating that ECU didn't add value as compared to the schools taken ahead of them. There are articles on places like CBS sports and elsewhere where sportswriters state that they have been told the schools being added were the schools that television partners said added value. If I restate this, you say it should be written as "in my opinion". It isn't my opinion. It is what the BE was told by television partners. Further evidence--the Big East didn't invite ECU and did invite many other schools.


On the other hand we have your -and other ECU posters personal opinion that this can't be true. Nothing to back that up. You state things like "ECU is being shafted by the Big East"--again nothing to back this up other than a misguided belief that the Big East is purposefully overlooking what must surely be their best option just for the purpose of intentionally shafting ECU or other such thought.

The Big East didn't invite ECU--they didn't invite many schools. The ones they did invite were considered by those that made the decision to be more valuable. Not my opinion--the opinion of those that made the decision to add schools not named ECU.

You twist so many things out of context. Not only that, you say I said things I never did.

I've only saisd that the Big East selected schools based on those they felt had the most value, not just that schools that had value. You imply the selected only the ones that had any value.

I'm not twisting anything out of context. Articles are out there, I'm certain you've seen them saying the schools added were the schools that added value from a television perspective. Your other statement makes no sense. If other schools add value for the Big East then they would try and add them as with all the others selected so far. If ECU isn't added then it is your opinion and nothing more that ECU adds value to that league. They obviously don't share your opinion.

(02-24-2012 09:42 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 07:45 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 08:16 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Seriously, we've explained the reasons ECU hasn't been at the top of the list ad nauseum, starting with NC being oversaturated already. Having said that, the time for Holland to call Marinara and beg is now. The BE seems pretty desperate to get an 8th team for 2012. Start the call with "we'll pay whatever it takes to get out of CUSA for the 2012 season."

I think the #1 reason we've been passed over is the DMA issue, which as you said has been discussed over and over...

But I don't get the "NC is over-saturated" argument. If NC is over-saturated, how does a 5-7 non-AQ school average 50,012 fans per game?

That number would lead the nBE. Do people expect that that interest would go down if we were to enter the nBE? Surely it would go up!

Couple of points in response.

First, ECU would be a fine addition to the BE. However, there are only a limited number of slots and there are other good candidates. The conference has to make its selections based upon something. The conference has historically focused on urban universities in large TV markets. It should not be surprising that it has applied this philosophy in its latest round of expansion

With respect to saturation, while solid attendance suggests that ECU has a committed following, it does not address the overall market share of ECU in the state of North Carolina. UNC and NCSU both averaged around 56,000 for 2011, Wake 32,000 and Dook 24,000. Even as a simple percentage of total FBS attendance, ECU is less than a 25% marketshare in NC.

Adding ECU means adding what would be the 5th AQ program (or equivalent) in NC. Looking at some of the other expansion candidates, SDSU will be the 5th AQ in California, UCF will be the 5th AQ in Florida, Temple would be the 3rd AQ in Pennsylvania, and Memphis will be the 3rd AQ in Tennessee. All but Tennessee are larger states than NC. UH and SMU will be the 6th and 7th AQ schools in Texas, but Texas is also obviously quite a bit larger than NC.In addition to potential fanbase, any given state has a finite number of quality recruits. I would argue that the NC schools are already hurt badly in recruiting by oversaturation with 4 BCS AQ schools in NC. Larger states obviously have proportionately more good recruits. Texas and Florida are incredible hotbeds of recruiting with a share of talent that is disproportionate even to their large relative sizes.

A curious hypothetical would be what if ECU were located in Charlotte (or stated alternatively, what if UNCC had ECU's football program)? UNCC and ECU are virtually the same size and have essentially the same academic profile (the same USNWR rank and Carnegie classification). Would this change the outcome based on location in a larger TV market?

That's an interesting point, and one that I have commented on in depth in the past.

So ECU enjoys a substantial market share within the 10th most populated state in the country. I would challenge anyone to show me another Non-AQ school that has a 25% simple market share of FBS schools within their respective states.

I can save you time. Not including Boise now, other than BYU, its probably not happening.

A simple 25% market share (22.9% to be exact) would result in over 2.2 million potential fans within the state of NC. That compares very favorably to other schools with much less market penetration in very large states or metro areas. This is due to deeply rooted fanbases of UF, FSU, Texas, A&M and Tennessee to name a few. North Carolina just doesn't have that kind of 800 lb gorilla dominating the football landscape.

This doesn't mean anything to the Big East. They're about DMA's because that is hard numbers they can sell to TV execs.

Quite frankly, the nBE is not good enough that membership in that conference would automatically boost ECU's attendance and simple market share to tops in the state. We will have already played most of the teams in conferences before. They wouldn't have the "wow" factor. Having UCF, SMU, Memphis, Houston, Cincinnati, Louisville, USF all back in Greenville under a new conference name would not result in tremendous growth of the fanbase.

Now, the SEC or Big 12, on the other hand, would cause ECU's attendance and fanbase to grow substantially, given the higher caliber of teams scheduled to play in Greenville. Association with either conference would automatically make ECU the top FBS football attraction within the state.

(02-24-2012 11:22 AM)piratefan1975 Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 09:42 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 07:45 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(02-23-2012 08:16 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Seriously, we've explained the reasons ECU hasn't been at the top of the list ad nauseum, starting with NC being oversaturated already. Having said that, the time for Holland to call Marinara and beg is now. The BE seems pretty desperate to get an 8th team for 2012. Start the call with "we'll pay whatever it takes to get out of CUSA for the 2012 season."

I think the #1 reason we've been passed over is the DMA issue, which as you said has been discussed over and over...

But I don't get the "NC is over-saturated" argument. If NC is over-saturated, how does a 5-7 non-AQ school average 50,012 fans per game?

That number would lead the nBE. Do people expect that that interest would go down if we were to enter the nBE? Surely it would go up!

Couple of points in response.

First, ECU would be a fine addition to the BE. However, there are only a limited number of slots and there are other good candidates. The conference has to make its selections based upon something. The conference has historically focused on urban universities in large TV markets. It should not be surprising that it has applied this philosophy in its latest round of expansion

With respect to saturation, while solid attendance suggests that ECU has a committed following, it does not address the overall market share of ECU in the state of North Carolina. UNC and NCSU both averaged around 56,000 for 2011, Wake 32,000 and Dook 24,000. Even as a simple percentage of total FBS attendance, ECU is less than a 25% marketshare in NC.

Adding ECU means adding what would be the 5th AQ program (or equivalent) in NC. Looking at some of the other expansion candidates, SDSU will be the 5th AQ in California, UCF will be the 5th AQ in Florida, Temple would be the 3rd AQ in Pennsylvania, and Memphis will be the 3rd AQ in Tennessee. All but Tennessee are larger states than NC. UH and SMU will be the 6th and 7th AQ schools in Texas, but Texas is also obviously quite a bit larger than NC.In addition to potential fanbase, any given state has a finite number of quality recruits. I would argue that the NC schools are already hurt badly in recruiting by oversaturation with 4 BCS AQ schools in NC. Larger states obviously have proportionately more good recruits. Texas and Florida are incredible hotbeds of recruiting with a share of talent that is disproportionate even to their large relative sizes.

A curious hypothetical would be what if ECU were located in Charlotte (or stated alternatively, what if UNCC had ECU's football program)? UNCC and ECU are virtually the same size and have essentially the same academic profile (the same USNWR rank and Carnegie classification). Would this change the outcome based on location in a larger TV market?

That's an interesting point, and one that I have commented on in depth in the past.

So ECU enjoys a substantial market share within the 10th most populated state in the country. I would challenge anyone to show me another Non-AQ school that has a 25% simple market share of FBS schools within their respective states.

I can save you time. Not including Boise now, other than BYU, its probably not happening.

A simple 25% market share (22.9% to be exact) would result in over 2.2 million potential fans within the state of NC. That compares very favorably to other schools with much less market penetration in very large states or metro areas. This is due to deeply rooted fanbases of UF, FSU, Texas, A&M and Tennessee to name a few. North Carolina just doesn't have that kind of 800 lb gorilla dominating the football landscape.

This doesn't mean anything to the Big East. They're about DMA's because that is hard numbers they can sell to TV execs.

Quite frankly, the nBE is not good enough that membership in that conference would automatically boost ECU's attendance and simple market share to tops in the state. We will have already played most of the teams in conferences before. They wouldn't have the "wow" factor. Having UCF, SMU, Memphis, Houston, Cincinnati, Louisville, USF all back in Greenville under a new conference name would not result in tremendous growth of the fanbase.

Now, the SEC or Big 12, on the other hand, would cause ECU's attendance and fanbase to grow substantially, given the higher caliber of teams scheduled to play in Greenville. Association with either conference would automatically make ECU the top FBS football attraction within the state.

You are simply speculating that ECU has a 25% market share of North Carolina and a fanbase of 2.2 million within the state. There is no evidence to support this is true. What is true is that tv networks have placed ECU in the category of "doesn't add value" along with many other schools. You go on to speculate that schools in large urban areas have less market share. You don't know this to be true, you simply speculate that it is, yet draw conclusions based on your theories. You are correct in your assumption that your theories don't mean anything to the Big East (or any other conference) --because they are your opinion only with no data to factually back them up.

The fact that other schools were added upsets your fanbase because you refuse to accept that other schools could be more desirable for a conference for various reasons than yours. It isn't because the conference has some limited view or agenda against your school--they didn't invite many many schools that can point out many factual positives about their schools without using theories to back up their case.