(09-13-2013 09:35 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 09:25 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 10:31 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 10:27 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  How did Syracuse get screwed? They're in the ACC, with Pitt...

im talking 2003 when they lost their spot to vtech. only reason their in the ACC now is because of conf realignment. had things never turned out the way they did it might never of happened

No wonder I didn't catch the meaning of your post. It was already dated when you made it...

im just using examples. im not trying to argue that theres a political advantage between private/public the way politics affect those schools is different

privates:
pros:
-cant be controlled by politicians with threats of funding cuts

cons:
-unless a politician is an alum, theres no big incentive for a politician to help you

publics:
pros:
-since you receive state funding politicians have an incentive to protect you

cons:
-politicians can use that same funding to control you.
-unless you are a flagship your needs always play second fiddle to other schools needs.

All the politics involved with school funding, even between the various departments, is why I quit working at the University of Tennessee and went to work in Oak Ridge. I dealt with less politics working on Dept. of Energy and Dept. of Defense contracts...

john01992, why have you not posted the requirements of what D4 is or will be?

(09-13-2013 09:45 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  john01992, why have you not posted the requirements of what D4 is or will be?

there are no requirements

its all about who has the best political leverage and offers something to the p5 that the p5 needs/wants

(09-13-2013 09:58 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 09:45 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  john01992, why have you not posted the requirements of what D4 is or will be?

there are no requirements

its all about who has the best political leverage and offers something to the p5 that the p5 needs/wants

So your first requirement is that they be in the P5 already.

(09-13-2013 09:58 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 09:45 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  john01992, why have you not posted the requirements of what D4 is or will be?

there are no requirements

its all about who has the best political leverage and offers something to the p5 that the p5 needs/wants

So your original post (crack head guess) of who is in or out is based
on something with no requirements?

(09-13-2013 11:02 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 09:58 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 09:45 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  john01992, why have you not posted the requirements of what D4 is or will be?

there are no requirements

its all about who has the best political leverage and offers something to the p5 that the p5 needs/wants

So your original post (crack head guess) of who is in or out is based
on something with no requirements?

last i checked conference realignment never had requirements either

(09-13-2013 10:15 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 09:58 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 09:45 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  john01992, why have you not posted the requirements of what D4 is or will be?

there are no requirements

its all about who has the best political leverage and offers something to the p5 that the p5 needs/wants

So your first requirement is that they be in the P5 already.

you can say that....but i thought that was a given

d4 is the p5 plus whatever schools they bring along, this isnt a "all the conferences get to 18 teams and compete as d4" proposal

(09-13-2013 11:08 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 11:02 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 09:58 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 09:45 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  john01992, why have you not posted the requirements of what D4 is or will be?

there are no requirements

its all about who has the best political leverage and offers something to the p5 that the p5 needs/wants

So your original post (crack head guess) of who is in or out is based
on something with no requirements?

last i checked conference realignment never had requirements either

Yeah but at least realignment is based on something, TV markets BTN,
ACC bringing strong basketball programs, C7 merging with other bball only programs etc.

Political laverage, wtf is that, define it. What does your Group A and Group B have that the P5 want?

(09-13-2013 12:21 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 11:08 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 11:02 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 09:58 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 09:45 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  john01992, why have you not posted the requirements of what D4 is or will be?

there are no requirements

its all about who has the best political leverage and offers something to the p5 that the p5 needs/wants

So your original post (crack head guess) of who is in or out is based
on something with no requirements?

last i checked conference realignment never had requirements either

Yeah but at least realignment is based on something, TV markets BTN,
ACC bringing strong basketball programs, C7 merging with other bball only programs etc.

Political laverage, wtf is that, define it. What does your Group A and Group B have that the P5 want?

rivalries, unsaturated markets, extended history at the d1 level to name a few.....

politics is what put okie state in the big 8, msu in the b10, tech/baylor in the b12, vtech in the acc.......

(09-13-2013 12:29 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 12:21 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 11:08 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 11:02 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 09:58 AM)john01992 Wrote:  there are no requirements

its all about who has the best political leverage and offers something to the p5 that the p5 needs/wants

So your original post (crack head guess) of who is in or out is based
on something with no requirements?

last i checked conference realignment never had requirements either

Yeah but at least realignment is based on something, TV markets BTN,
ACC bringing strong basketball programs, C7 merging with other bball only programs etc.

Political laverage, wtf is that, define it. What does your Group A and Group B have that the P5 want?

rivalries, unsaturated markets, extended history at the d1 level to name a few.....

politics is what put okie state in the big 8, msu in the b10, tech/baylor in the b12, vtech in the acc.......

D4 tweets

Jeremy Fowler ‏@JFowlerCBS 11 Sep

Votes for board of directors could be weighted for 5 power conferences and "perhaps the AAC" as succession to former BCS-qualifier Big East
Expand
Jeremy Fowler ‏@JFowlerCBS 11 Sep

FARs also proposing an FBS Management Council composed of one AD and one Fac Rep per conf, along with possibly Sr. Womens Admins, Commishes
Expand
Jeremy Fowler ‏@JFowlerCBS 11 Sep

Faculty Reps sent proposal to NCAA on governance: FBS as one subdivision w/ own board of directors (at least one prez/chancellor per conf)

(09-13-2013 12:29 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 12:21 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 11:08 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 11:02 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 09:58 AM)john01992 Wrote:  there are no requirements

its all about who has the best political leverage and offers something to the p5 that the p5 needs/wants

So your original post (crack head guess) of who is in or out is based
on something with no requirements?

last i checked conference realignment never had requirements either

Yeah but at least realignment is based on something, TV markets BTN,
ACC bringing strong basketball programs, C7 merging with other bball only programs etc.

Political laverage, wtf is that, define it. What does your Group A and Group B have that the P5 want?

rivalries, unsaturated markets, extended history at the d1 level to name a few.....

politics is what put okie state in the big 8, msu in the b10, tech/baylor in the b12, vtech in the acc.......

Why would they care about rivalries? If the attendance and TV ratings are there, rivalries don't accomplish anything. And what is "extended history at d1 level" and why does that matter?

(09-13-2013 02:32 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 12:29 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 12:21 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 11:08 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 11:02 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  So your original post (crack head guess) of who is in or out is based
on something with no requirements?

last i checked conference realignment never had requirements either

Yeah but at least realignment is based on something, TV markets BTN,
ACC bringing strong basketball programs, C7 merging with other bball only programs etc.

Political laverage, wtf is that, define it. What does your Group A and Group B have that the P5 want?

rivalries, unsaturated markets, extended history at the d1 level to name a few.....

politics is what put okie state in the big 8, msu in the b10, tech/baylor in the b12, vtech in the acc.......

Why would they care about rivalries? If the attendance and TV ratings are there, rivalries don't accomplish anything. And what is "extended history at d1 level" and why does that matter?

Media execs may not care about preserving rivalries but politicians should.

Rivalries are what draws fans to games, to eat out before and after the games, rent hotel rooms, encourages fans to buy team apparel on a whim, support their team financially. Rivalries go off of the field when schools compete in other areas. Good rivalries stimulate economic activity.

(09-13-2013 02:41 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 02:32 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 12:29 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 12:21 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 11:08 AM)john01992 Wrote:  last i checked conference realignment never had requirements either

Yeah but at least realignment is based on something, TV markets BTN,
ACC bringing strong basketball programs, C7 merging with other bball only programs etc.

Political laverage, wtf is that, define it. What does your Group A and Group B have that the P5 want?

rivalries, unsaturated markets, extended history at the d1 level to name a few.....

politics is what put okie state in the big 8, msu in the b10, tech/baylor in the b12, vtech in the acc.......

Why would they care about rivalries? If the attendance and TV ratings are there, rivalries don't accomplish anything. And what is "extended history at d1 level" and why does that matter?

Media execs may not care about preserving rivalries but politicians should.

Rivalries are what draws fans to games, to eat out before and after the games, rent hotel rooms, encourages fans to buy team apparel on a whim, support their team financially. Rivalries go off of the field when schools compete in other areas. Good rivalries stimulate economic activity.

But what say do politicians have in all this? The whole assumption is that the P5 schools will do what's best for them, not anybody else including politicians. Apparel sales would already be included in other numbers so you don't need rivalries for that. Realignment has already destroyed rivalries and nobody seemed to care about that. The P5 schools did that to themselves.

(09-13-2013 02:49 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 02:41 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 02:32 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 12:29 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 12:21 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Yeah but at least realignment is based on something, TV markets BTN,
ACC bringing strong basketball programs, C7 merging with other bball only programs etc.

Political laverage, wtf is that, define it. What does your Group A and Group B have that the P5 want?

rivalries, unsaturated markets, extended history at the d1 level to name a few.....

politics is what put okie state in the big 8, msu in the b10, tech/baylor in the b12, vtech in the acc.......

Why would they care about rivalries? If the attendance and TV ratings are there, rivalries don't accomplish anything. And what is "extended history at d1 level" and why does that matter?

Media execs may not care about preserving rivalries but politicians should.

Rivalries are what draws fans to games, to eat out before and after the games, rent hotel rooms, encourages fans to buy team apparel on a whim, support their team financially. Rivalries go off of the field when schools compete in other areas. Good rivalries stimulate economic activity.

But what say do politicians have in all this? The whole assumption is that the P5 schools will do what's best for them, not anybody else including politicians. Apparel sales would already be included in other numbers so you don't need rivalries for that. Realignment has already destroyed rivalries and nobody seemed to care about that. The P5 schools did that to themselves.

Not sure what's in store for D4, but there is always the potential to rebuild some rivalries through scheduling or whatever landscape the D4 ends up with.

(09-12-2013 08:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 07:55 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  john01992 must've received an early rejection letter from DAAP or CCM.

i dont even know what those stand for

The fact that you don't know what those stand for proves how very little you know about the academics at the University of Cincinnati.

(09-13-2013 08:21 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 08:02 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:   I don't know why it is, but Cincinnati always seems to have someone like "John" on message boards hell bent to trash the university and its athletic programs.

The University of Cincinnati is not going away anytime soon. They will continue to have winning athletic programs.

As much as I wish they WOULD be relegated to MAC hell...you're right.

Leave us out of this.

Got to be approaching 15 pages... I'm ready to see this essay explanation.

this is lame...rivalries? Expansion in the past few years should CLEARLY demonstrate the conferences and networks don't care about rivalries.

(09-14-2013 02:09 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  this is lame...rivalries? Expansion in the past few years should CLEARLY demonstrate the conferences and networks don't care about rivalries.

They certainly didn't care about any of WVU's rivalries...