(04-19-2011 02:10 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  As former Pitt head coach and noted wordsmith Walt Harris once famously quipped, "Hindsight is 50/50" but I think ECU's AD, Terry Holland misplayed this whole thing by offering up football only too early in the process.

Imagine if right now, with the Big East obviously reeling trying to figure out what to do and clear division in the ranks, ECU made the gesture to come in as a football only with no promises of further membership. With television negotiations in full swing and some major deadlines looming I think that would have given both sides a clear way to save face and still reach their goals and the Pirates may have been an attractive compromise choice between the football schools and the basketball schools.

Instead Holland put that out there pretty early in the process and I think that may have marginialized your candidacy in the long run because it created an out for the schools that are opposed to expansion of any kind.

Possibly, but then again I think the BE would always know we would jump at a FB only invite whether or not we had come out and said it this time. Pretty sure last time we probably mentioned we would do it as well. It has never been some sort of big secret that we would jump at it.

Snowballs chance for 10. But I think they deserve to be in an AQ and will be at some point.

ZERO.

(04-19-2011 10:20 AM)TampaKnight Wrote:  5%

I can't see it happening this soon.

Have to assume you think UCF has a 95% chance...thats a real shocker.

I have a friend that moved to Orlando for a few years from Charlotte and hated it...she said the people there were crazy.

(04-19-2011 09:27 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(04-19-2011 10:20 AM)TampaKnight Wrote:  5%

I can't see it happening this soon.

Have to assume you think UCF has a 95% chance...thats a real shocker.

I have a friend that moved to Orlando for a few years from Charlotte and hated it...she said the people there were crazy.

I think it is funny you assume I think we're a lock for the Big East. Expansion is a delicate issue. However, I DO believe we are in a far better position for upward mobility.

UCF is 45%. Consider football, and I think we are 54%.

ok here are the chances with 3 possible scenarios

12 team without Nova: UCF 90% Houston 65% SMU 30% ECU 35% Memphis 40%
12 team with Nova: UCF 95% Houston 60% SMU 25% ECU 15% Memphis 35%
10 Team without Nova UCF 75% Houston 40% ECU 0% SMU 5% Memphis 25%

(04-19-2011 10:26 PM)Purple n Gold Wrote:  ok here are the chances with 3 possible scenarios

12 team without Nova: UCF 90% Houston 65% SMU 30% ECU 35% Memphis 40%
12 team with Nova: UCF 95% Houston 60% SMU 25% ECU 15% Memphis 35%
10 Team without Nova UCF 75% Houston 40% ECU 0% SMU 5% Memphis 25%

None of your %s even equal the necessary total. How can UCF and Houston combine to have a 115% chance of being in the Big East if there is only one spot open?

Anyway, I think ECU has a pretty low chance of being #10. Personally, I think Nova still gets in. Thats not what I think should happen. But if the Big East is so hell-bent on a terrible idea like Nova then why would you want to be associated with this league? Just win 10 games consistently and you will find yourself playing in BCS games. Its not like the rest of the Big East's bowl lineup is any better than C-USA and its football tv deal is absolutely pathetic.

All of this could be improved, of course. But if the league considers to pursue failed ideas such as admitting Nova for football, there is no reason to see any sudden improvement from a football standpoint.

The percentages are not to be totaled up but to give the likely hood of them going

(04-19-2011 10:39 PM)Purple n Gold Wrote:  The percentages are not to be totaled up but to give the likely hood of them going

Right. So how can there be a 115% likelihood (the correct way to spell fyi) of UCF & Houston joining in one spot. You don't quite understand how percentages work do you?

The percentages do not have to add up to 100% for the 12 team scenarios. The likelihood of one team being accepted as a member for one spot does not necesarily exclude the likelihood of another team being accepted for a later spot so the percentages woudl change as each member is added up to 12. Therefore the choices for spot 10, 11, and 12 are indpendent events.
The only one in which the percentages should add up to 100% is for a single team being added to go to 10 members, but they would only add up to 100% if this list included every possible expansion canidate.
I know I haven't done the best job of expaining this, it's been a while since I sat in a classroom.

The percentages do not have to add up to 100% for the 12 team scenarios. The likelihood of one team being accepted as a member for one spot does not necesarily exclude the likelihood of another team being accepted for a later spot so the percentages woudl change as each member is added up to 12. Therefore the choices for spot 10, 11, and 12 are indpendent events.
The only one in which the percentages should add up to 100% is for a single team being added to go to 10 members, but they would only add up to 100% if this list included every possible expansion canidate.
I know I haven't done the best job of expaining this, it's been a while since I sat in a classroom.


I have no idea why this posted twice.

(04-18-2011 10:14 PM)piratefan1975 Wrote:  What more can I say?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCFB2akLh4s

This pretty much sums it up. Nice post.

(04-19-2011 02:11 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(04-19-2011 01:49 PM)Bull Wrote:  It's simple, building facilities does not entitle anyone to change conferences. Period. Goes for Houston, UCF, or anyone. It's nice to be attractive should opportunities arise, but the primary driver for facilities should be to have a nice home for your team and fans. Frankly, many schools are getting new buildings. Does not mean that anyone, anywhere MUST include you. Invitations may be issued, only as decided by the existing membership, based on a pretty complicated formula of needs/wants the conference has... This is not directed at any one school, it's a generic statement. I see a lot of rock throwing based on pretty arbitrary parameters here... like, 'we built our stadium first!' Who cares? If I'm sitting in the BE presidents chair, I'm looking for the biggest market, nicest facilities, best fans who travel well, legitimate new market, TV dollars, best potential rivalries, fits into existing footprint, etc etc. No ONE candidate is going to be first in EVERY category, and no single category matters most. Pretty stadium is actually going to be low on my list, does not really help me make $$$ on my TV contract. Market size and filled seats do...

IMHO, market means nothing if you can't get the casual football fan to watch your product. Here in DFW, I will only watch TCU if they are playing a big name school. I have no disrespect for TCU but unless they are playing someone big, I don't care to watch. Same thing with SMU and UNT.

You have no disrespect for TCU. You have disrespect for all non-AQ teams and probably Big East and ACC teams. That's because you're a Big XII guy. If you lived in FL, you wouldn't watch UCF. If you lived in Carolina, you wouldn't watch ECU. If you lived in Idaho, you wouldn't watch BSU. If you lived in Utah, you wouldn't watch Utah St. If you lived in Nevada, you wouldn't watch UNLV. If you lived in Colorado, you wouldn't watch CSU.

Hell, if you lived in Carolina, you probably wouldn't watch UNC, NC State, or Clemson.

And you're a pitiful fan if you won't watch UNT games on TV even though you claim to root for UNT in your profile. Of course, Jeff never said he went to UNT. I never went to UNT and I watch UNT games. I even went to the Spring game this weekend. Obviously you missed it since you won't even watch them on TV.

(04-19-2011 02:11 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(04-19-2011 01:49 PM)Bull Wrote:  It's simple, building facilities does not entitle anyone to change conferences. Period. Goes for Houston, UCF, or anyone. It's nice to be attractive should opportunities arise, but the primary driver for facilities should be to have a nice home for your team and fans. Frankly, many schools are getting new buildings. Does not mean that anyone, anywhere MUST include you. Invitations may be issued, only as decided by the existing membership, based on a pretty complicated formula of needs/wants the conference has... This is not directed at any one school, it's a generic statement. I see a lot of rock throwing based on pretty arbitrary parameters here... like, 'we built our stadium first!' Who cares? If I'm sitting in the BE presidents chair, I'm looking for the biggest market, nicest facilities, best fans who travel well, legitimate new market, TV dollars, best potential rivalries, fits into existing footprint, etc etc. No ONE candidate is going to be first in EVERY category, and no single category matters most. Pretty stadium is actually going to be low on my list, does not really help me make $$$ on my TV contract. Market size and filled seats do...

IMHO, market means nothing if you can't get the casual football fan to watch your product. Here in DFW, I will only watch TCU if they are playing a big name school. I have no disrespect for TCU but unless they are playing someone big, I don't care to watch. Same thing with SMU and UNT.

In expansion market is a huge factor. Many non-aq schools don't have the marketing power of an AQ conference behind them pushing the product. If winning was the main factor and market meant nothing, why is Boise always left out. The answer is market.

(04-19-2011 12:41 PM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  Well first off I want to apologize to ALL the Houston faithful out there for I used the wrong word RENOVATE when I should have used UPGRADE/UPDATE/NEW CONSTRUCTION what ever apparently, but really another poster mentioned it quite well that ECU as well as UCF have already done their part in due to all their facilities, and Houston is just starting. The only reason I think ECU has a shot at being #10 is they bring to the table another part of the country that the Big East has no footing in what so ever, and USF already present in Florida makes UCF a back burner situation IMO even though I think they are ready now more so than others. Really didn't think my wording would have been an issue, but again I am man enough to admit my mistake, but really I think the majority understood what I was talking about, but again sorry if I stepped on anyone's beleaguered ego with RENOVATE.

No problem. I didn't originally intend for this to be such a crap storm. For those casual Big East fans that might be here and doesn't know UH's situation, I just wanted to be clear that we're building a stadium. That's it.

If the only thing holding up the Big East about choosing UH is a stadium, Reliant is an option and can be done almost immediately. So facilities, not a problem. Better facilities than UCF and ECU's are available for UH to use, it is just not the ideal option for UH.

(04-20-2011 09:30 AM)NTXCoog Wrote:  

(04-19-2011 12:41 PM)BigOwensboroCard Wrote:  Well first off I want to apologize to ALL the Houston faithful out there for I used the wrong word RENOVATE when I should have used UPGRADE/UPDATE/NEW CONSTRUCTION what ever apparently, but really another poster mentioned it quite well that ECU as well as UCF have already done their part in due to all their facilities, and Houston is just starting. The only reason I think ECU has a shot at being #10 is they bring to the table another part of the country that the Big East has no footing in what so ever, and USF already present in Florida makes UCF a back burner situation IMO even though I think they are ready now more so than others. Really didn't think my wording would have been an issue, but again I am man enough to admit my mistake, but really I think the majority understood what I was talking about, but again sorry if I stepped on anyone's beleaguered ego with RENOVATE.

No problem. I didn't originally intend for this to be such a crap storm. For those casual Big East fans that might be here and doesn't know UH's situation, I just wanted to be clear that we're building a stadium. That's it.

If the only thing holding up the Big East about choosing UH is a stadium, Reliant is an option and can be done almost immediately. So facilities, not a problem. Better facilities than UCF and ECU's are available for UH to use, it is just not the ideal option for UH.

If they have better facilities then why don't they use them? Is it a bigger stadium? Would the problem be that UH would not be able to fill a bigger stadium? Just a question.

(04-20-2011 09:42 AM)kittrellecu Wrote:  If they have better facilities then why don't they use them? Is it a bigger stadium? Would the problem be that UH would not be able to fill a bigger stadium? Just a question.

Reliant Stadium seats 71,500. It is where the Houston Texans play. The stadium is available to UH for use (a few games have been played there before). However, this is an option that will only been used if necessary (and only as a short term solution), because of the financial ramifications. The university gets no concession or parking revenue. We could probably put 60,000 people in Reliant and UH would not make as much money as selling out our on-campus stadium. When we tear down Robertson and break ground on the new stadium, we are already expecting to play in Reliant during the construction, so the debate is somewhat academic anyway.

Reliant would be a good place for Houston to play, if they can manage to fill the stadium. However, if they can't, playing in a half empty NFL stadium won't help The BEast cause much...

(04-20-2011 09:49 AM)chrisharper80 Wrote:  

(04-20-2011 09:42 AM)kittrellecu Wrote:  If they have better facilities then why don't they use them? Is it a bigger stadium? Would the problem be that UH would not be able to fill a bigger stadium? Just a question.

Reliant Stadium seats 71,500. It is where the Houston Texans play. The stadium is available to UH for use (a few games have been played there before). However, this is an option that will only been used if necessary (and only as a short term solution), because of the financial ramifications. The university gets no concession or parking revenue. We could probably put 60,000 people in Reliant and UH would not make as much money as selling out our on-campus stadium. When we tear down Robertson and break ground on the new stadium, we are already expecting to play in Reliant during the construction, so the debate is somewhat academic anyway.

+1

(04-20-2011 10:04 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Reliant would be a good place for Houston to play, if they can manage to fill the stadium. However, if they can't, playing in a half empty NFL stadium won't help The BEast cause much...

UH played in the Astrodome for many years. No tailgating, off campus, cavernous and expensive. It was a disaster.

Reliant will be better for many reason, but it will be a short-term solution only.