Nothing new, but a pretty decent evaluation.

http://bonesville.net/Articles/DannyWhit...itford.htm

(01-14-2013 09:42 AM)lollaperuna Wrote:  Nothing new, but a pretty decent evaluation.

I agree that we should encoueage SDSU to withdraw and focus on schools east of the rockies, really east of the mississippi. And we should be all sports, meaning a football focus.

But nothing can be done about our core prroblem: all schools want to leave for a Power 5 conference.

(01-14-2013 09:42 AM)lollaperuna Wrote:  Nothing new, but a pretty decent evaluation.

http://bonesville.net/Articles/DannyWhit...itford.htm

That might be the most depressing article on the BE that I've read in some time. If UMass and Charlotte are our next big moves then theres really no point in continuing on. What's the difference in seeing UMass on your schedule or UTSA? What's the difference between seeing Charlotte on your schedule and N Texas? We need to be smarter than that. Don't add anyone if that's all there is to add.

So the question remains . . . why in the face of clear logic and public demand has Aresco & Co. not extended an all sports invitation to East Carolina . . .

I've come to the conclusions that after UConn and/or Cincinnati leave for greener pastures . . . . USF and ECU (I've done a 180 on ECU) will be the anchors of the Big East because of their proven ability to put 45,000-plus in the stands week-in, week-out even when they don't win and regardless of who they play . . . if Temple, UCF, and UH can deliver on their commitments, that should give this conference four teams who should average close to or more than 40,000 fans a week . . . this would substantially surpass the MWC and put up a key statistic too big to exclude from BCS Bowl discussion . . .

(01-14-2013 10:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:42 AM)lollaperuna Wrote:  Nothing new, but a pretty decent evaluation.

http://bonesville.net/Articles/DannyWhit...itford.htm

That might be the most depressing article on the BE that I've read in some time. If UMass and Charlotte are our next big moves then theres really no point in continuing on. What's the difference in seeing UMass on your schedule or UTSA? What's the difference between seeing Charlotte on your schedule and N Texas? We need to be smarter than that. Don't add anyone if that's all there is to add.

I'm sure that Syracuse, Pittsburgh, etc. said the same thing when the Big East added Cincinnati, Louisville, and UConn . . . . . . the Big East must embrace it's role as the conference where teams who demonstrate the ability to sell tickets (and eyeballs) get the chance to prove it on a bigger stage . . . .

. . . I'm all for a conference membership clause that says if you don't average more than 25,000 fans a year for three years, you are kicked out of the conference . . . .

(01-14-2013 10:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:42 AM)lollaperuna Wrote:  Nothing new, but a pretty decent evaluation.

http://bonesville.net/Articles/DannyWhit...itford.htm

That might be the most depressing article on the BE that I've read in some time. If UMass and Charlotte are our next big moves then theres really no point in continuing on. What's the difference in seeing UMass on your schedule or UTSA? What's the difference between seeing Charlotte on your schedule and N Texas? We need to be smarter than that. Don't add anyone if that's all there is to add.

Umass is a flagship school. They are similar to where Uconn was about 10-12 years ago. Charlotte is an option in the future due to their market, hoops, airport, etc.

(01-14-2013 10:58 AM)UHCougar Wrote:  So the question remains . . . why in the face of clear logic and public demand has Aresco & Co. not extended an all sports invitation to East Carolina . . .

I've come to the conclusions that after UConn and/or Cincinnati leave for greener pastures . . . . USF and ECU (I've done a 180 on ECU) will be the anchors of the Big East because of their proven ability to put 45,000-plus in the stands week-in, week-out even when they don't win and regardless of who they play . . .

I take it you don't watch many USF home games on TV...because if you did, you would have never made the above statement as USF had just 1 home game this year that drew an actual crowd of larger than 30,800 and that was the FSU game when tens of thousands of FSU fans filled up the Bucs stadium.

Here's USF's actual attendance per 2012 home game (announced attendance is also noted):

Per St Pete Times:

UT Chattanooga: 30,733 Actual attendance (41,285 announced)

Rutgers: 29,861 (44,219 announced)

Florida State: 58,808 (69,383 announced)

Syracuse: 23,833 (38,562 announced)

UCONN: 20,665 (36,190 announced)

Pitt: 18,841 (35,241 announced)

(01-14-2013 11:23 AM)KNIGHTTIME Wrote:  Umass is a flagship school. They are similar to where Uconn was about 10-12 years ago.

No they're not. 10-12 years ago, UConn was already the most powerful local sports brand in Connecticut, fresh off a national title with a boatload of Sweet Sixteen banners from the previous decade, a bunch of Big East tournament and regular season titles. They were the only thing happening in Connecticut after the New England Whalers left.

To build the borderline-AQ-quality FBS program they have now, all they really had to do was get their fanbase to add UConn football to UConn basketball and NFL football.

Stereotypically, find the guy in a UConn cap and Patriots/Giants jersey.
"Hey, you like UConn? You like football? Howdya like--UConn football!"

UMass doesn't have that guy in a UMass cap. UMass at Foxborough has much more in common with the XFL or USFL or UFL, a venture that was founded on the idea of unlimited demand for football that went bust.

(01-14-2013 10:58 AM)UHCougar Wrote:  So the question remains . . . why in the face of clear logic and public demand has Aresco & Co. not extended an all sports invitation to East Carolina . . .

I've come to the conclusions that after UConn and/or Cincinnati leave for greener pastures . . . . USF and ECU (I've done a 180 on ECU) will be the anchors of the Big East because of their proven ability to put 45,000-plus in the stands week-in, week-out even when they don't win and regardless of who they play . . . if Temple, UCF, and UH can deliver on their commitments, that should give this conference four teams who should average close to or more than 40,000 fans a week . . . this would substantially surpass the MWC and put up a key statistic too big to exclude from BCS Bowl discussion . . .

(01-14-2013 10:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:42 AM)lollaperuna Wrote:  Nothing new, but a pretty decent evaluation.

http://bonesville.net/Articles/DannyWhit...itford.htm

That might be the most depressing article on the BE that I've read in some time. If UMass and Charlotte are our next big moves then theres really no point in continuing on. What's the difference in seeing UMass on your schedule or UTSA? What's the difference between seeing Charlotte on your schedule and N Texas? We need to be smarter than that. Don't add anyone if that's all there is to add.

I'm sure that Syracuse, Pittsburgh, etc. said the same thing when the Big East added Cincinnati, Louisville, and UConn . . . . . . the Big East must embrace it's role as the conference where teams who demonstrate the ability to sell tickets (and eyeballs) get the chance to prove it on a bigger stage . . . .

. . . I'm all for a conference membership clause that says if you don't average more than 25,000 fans a year for three years, you are kicked out of the conference . . . .

And yet Cincy & Louisville have been the dominant teams in the Big East since 2005. (Put WVa in the mix too)

That's an ECU source and I stopped reading when he started in with the Charlotte and ODU mess. Those schools do nothing for the Big East. Let them prove and improve their stock in CUSA and then we can revisit it. Add Tulsa and leave it alone until Navy joins in 2015.

(01-14-2013 11:30 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 10:58 AM)UHCougar Wrote:  So the question remains . . . why in the face of clear logic and public demand has Aresco & Co. not extended an all sports invitation to East Carolina . . .

I've come to the conclusions that after UConn and/or Cincinnati leave for greener pastures . . . . USF and ECU (I've done a 180 on ECU) will be the anchors of the Big East because of their proven ability to put 45,000-plus in the stands week-in, week-out even when they don't win and regardless of who they play . . .

I take it you don't watch many USF home games on TV...because if you did, you would have never made the above statement as USF had just 1 home game this year that drew an actual crowd of larger than 30,800 and that was the FSU game when tens of thousands of FSU fans filled up the Bucs stadium.

Here's USF's actual attendance per 2012 home game (announced attendance is also noted):

Per St Pete Times:

UT Chattanooga: 30,733 Actual attendance (41,285 announced)

Rutgers: 29,861 (44,219 announced)

Florida State: 58,808 (69,383 announced)

Syracuse: 23,833 (38,562 announced)

UCONN: 20,665 (36,190 announced)

Pitt: 18,841 (35,241 announced)

. . . I have never attended a USF home game, and my post is not intended to be a debate about actual v. announced attendance . . . and, if you took this is some slight of UCF, it wasn't . . . but the NCAA says USF put up 44,130 average attendance, and this is probably the only stat that really matters.

http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/2012/Internet/a...NDANCE.pdf

. . . my theory has always been if the season ticket was sold, and the ticket holder didn't attend the game in person, the ticketholder (and their friends, family, etc.) probably will watch it at home if its on national/regional television . . .

(01-14-2013 10:58 AM)UHCougar Wrote:  So the question remains . . . why in the face of clear logic and public demand has Aresco & Co. not extended an all sports invitation to East Carolina . . .

I've come to the conclusions that after UConn and/or Cincinnati leave for greener pastures . . . . USF and ECU (I've done a 180 on ECU) will be the anchors of the Big East because of their proven ability to put 45,000-plus in the stands week-in, week-out even when they don't win and regardless of who they play . . . if Temple, UCF, and UH can deliver on their commitments, that should give this conference four teams who should average close to or more than 40,000 fans a week . . . this would substantially surpass the MWC and put up a key statistic too big to exclude from BCS Bowl discussion . . .

(01-14-2013 10:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:42 AM)lollaperuna Wrote:  Nothing new, but a pretty decent evaluation.

http://bonesville.net/Articles/DannyWhit...itford.htm

That might be the most depressing article on the BE that I've read in some time. If UMass and Charlotte are our next big moves then theres really no point in continuing on. What's the difference in seeing UMass on your schedule or UTSA? What's the difference between seeing Charlotte on your schedule and N Texas? We need to be smarter than that. Don't add anyone if that's all there is to add.

I'm sure that Syracuse, Pittsburgh, etc. said the same thing when the Big East added Cincinnati, Louisville, and UConn . . . . . . the Big East must embrace it's role as the conference where teams who demonstrate the ability to sell tickets (and eyeballs) get the chance to prove it on a bigger stage . . . .

. . . I'm all for a conference membership clause that says if you don't average more than 25,000 fans a year for three years, you are kicked out of the conference . . . .

The all sports invite is coming for ECU, it is already a done deal but there are a lot factors at this point that does not allow the Big East to make that formal at this point. My guess is once the final membership for the Big East is worked out there will be formal announcements of additions and ECU all sports at the same time.

If SDSU leaves that puts us at 11 with Navy. Add Tulsa (which, regardless of my or anyone else's opinions) are apparently next in line, and that makes 12. No reason whatsoever to add any more until proven that they add to the brand and the dollar value.

(01-14-2013 11:35 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  . . . UMass doesn't have that guy in a UMass cap. UMass at Foxborough has much more in common with the XFL or USFL or UFL, a venture that was founded on the idea of unlimited demand for football that went bust.

. . . or maybe just some time to figure out a strategy to make the Gillette Stadium experiment work (ie., better conference, opponents, media coverage, etc.) . . . and UMass isn't being suggested for their current attendance at "home" football games . . . it's everything else they potentially bring . . .

(01-14-2013 10:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:42 AM)lollaperuna Wrote:  Nothing new, but a pretty decent evaluation.

http://bonesville.net/Articles/DannyWhit...itford.htm

That might be the most depressing article on the BE that I've read in some time. If UMass and Charlotte are our next big moves then theres really no point in continuing on. What's the difference in seeing UMass on your schedule or UTSA? What's the difference between seeing Charlotte on your schedule and N Texas? We need to be smarter than that. Don't add anyone if that's all there is to add.

It's CUSA circa April/May 2012.

A shared vision of being the best possible league colored by divergence in geography and priority.

What many observers believed would the addition of one or maybe two teams became the addition of six in order to balance the competing ideas of how to achieve the goal.

It's WAC circa 1993-94.

The expansion committee returns to the body and states that it believes it is in the best interest of the WAC to expand to 12 but has failed to reach a consensus on which two of the 10 or so schools evaluated should be selected, the matter resolves by taking the six schools having some significant support.

I can understand UConn wanting UMass. I can understand Cincinnati and ECU wanting Charlotte, I can understand Tulane, SMU, Houston supporting Tulsa. I can understand everyone outside their region finding the other region's supported teams being an odd choice. The question is in how it gets resolved.

The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know.
-Harry S Truman

How do we get this guy as our commissioner? Certainly, there is an assistant BIG commissioner out there ready to move to the Big East just like coaching hires . . .

(01-13-2013 05:02 PM)XLance Wrote:  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college...&eref=sihp


Championship game, bowl trip, or new 60" HD TV?

east
Conn
Cin
Temple
EC
USF
UCF
Buffalo
Navy [UMass olympic sports]

west
Memphis
Hous
SMU
Tulane
Tulsa
UTEP
New Mexico [If NM declines, pick 1, Rice, LousT,SoMiss,ArkSt,UTSA]
Air Force, with Navy [VCU olympic sports ] [ if decline, pick another from above]

(01-14-2013 11:54 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 10:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:42 AM)lollaperuna Wrote:  Nothing new, but a pretty decent evaluation.

http://bonesville.net/Articles/DannyWhit...itford.htm

That might be the most depressing article on the BE that I've read in some time. If UMass and Charlotte are our next big moves then theres really no point in continuing on. What's the difference in seeing UMass on your schedule or UTSA? What's the difference between seeing Charlotte on your schedule and N Texas? We need to be smarter than that. Don't add anyone if that's all there is to add.

It's CUSA circa April/May 2012.

A shared vision of being the best possible league colored by divergence in geography and priority.

What many observers believed would the addition of one or maybe two teams became the addition of six in order to balance the competing ideas of how to achieve the goal.

It's WAC circa 1993-94.

The expansion committee returns to the body and states that it believes it is in the best interest of the WAC to expand to 12 but has failed to reach a consensus on which two of the 10 or so schools evaluated should be selected, the matter resolves by taking the six schools having some significant support.

I can understand UConn wanting UMass. I can understand Cincinnati and ECU wanting Charlotte, I can understand Tulane, SMU, Houston supporting Tulsa. I can understand everyone outside their region finding the other region's supported teams being an odd choice. The question is in how it gets resolved.

The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know.
-Harry S Truman

How about just adding those schools today that are actually ready today. UMass and Charlotte are not ready today. ODU is not ready (though it's closer). Tulsa is ready today. S Miss is ready today. Nobody else out there is ready. When they are, we can talk about thier addition then. Theres no reason for that debate today.

Unless we can't survive without adding a UMass type school (ie, we dont have 8 members without thier inclusion), then there's no point in adding another team on purely speculative potential. I mean, whats the rush? Is the Big10 targeting UMass? Let these type schools develop and add them when they are ready (when needed).

(01-14-2013 11:50 AM)ECU-DMB Fanatic Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 10:58 AM)UHCougar Wrote:  So the question remains . . . why in the face of clear logic and public demand has Aresco & Co. not extended an all sports invitation to East Carolina . . .

The all sports invite is coming for ECU, it is already a done deal but there are a lot factors at this point that does not allow the Big East to make that formal at this point. My guess is once the final membership for the Big East is worked out there will be formal announcements of additions and ECU all sports at the same time.

I have to believe it will be too, but I think there is a hiccup in the works. That hiccup is whether or not ECU can join the BE for 2013 or not. A few ECU fans have reported speculation that ECU might very well be prepared to make the move for next season, which IMHO would be very costly for them with little ROI as compared to staying in CUSA for one more year. But CUSA will not let ECU keep their non-FB sports there while football leaves. CUSA is an all-or-nothing league, with exceptions for non-revenue sports.

So what could be holding it up? If ECU is indeed prepared to leave CUSA early, it would really only be because SDSU is staying and the C7 are leaving then, too. There's no sense in adding ECU early just to get to 11 and there's really no sense in ECU putting thier non-FB sports in another conference for one year (I doubt any conference would knowingly agree to that). But the C7 would have a freaking cow if they had to play ECU hoops in conference for even one season. So as long as the C7 are planning one more year in the BE, there's little possibility ECU is joining early in all-sports. The C7 might be so objectionable to ECU's hoops that they don't want to even consider inviting them until they are absolutely sure when they will leave.

(01-14-2013 12:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  . . .How about just adding those schools today that are actually ready today. UMass and Charlotte are not ready today. ODU is not ready it ready. Tulsa is ready today. S Miss is ready today. Nobody else out there is ready. When they are, we can talk about thier addition then. Theres no reason for that debate today.

Unless we can't survive without adding a UMass type school (ie, we dont have 8 members without thier inclusion), then there's no point in adding another team on purely speculative potential.

I agree that the best avenue is add no one now . . . but it you do . . . I know there is a debate about the "hybrid model" being a failure, but I think 2-3 schools who don't play football are fine . . . one of the reasons I like ODU, is some folks say it would be enough to get VCU to join as well . . . would be a nice two-for-one . . . add UMass and then say a couple from Wichita State, St. Louis, Belmont, St. Joseph's, etc. . . and you have a couple of football adds with potential and 4 basketball-only schools. . . I think that is manageable . . . be creative . . . because "safe and conservative" isn't working . . .

(01-14-2013 11:53 AM)UHCougar Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 11:35 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  . . . UMass doesn't have that guy in a UMass cap. UMass at Foxborough has much more in common with the XFL or USFL or UFL, a venture that was founded on the idea of unlimited demand for football that went bust.

. . . or maybe just some time to figure out a strategy to make the Gillette Stadium experiment work (ie., better conference, opponents, media coverage, etc.) . . . and UMass isn't being suggested for their current attendance at "home" football games . . . it's everything else they potentially bring . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Boston...tball_team
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Boston...tball_team
etc etc etc

If BC, who is in the same market and has been playing at a big-boy level since at least Doug Flutie in the 1980s, can't fill a 45000 seater when Florida State, Clemson, Miami, Georgia TEch or Virginia Tech come to town, what difference do you expect bringing in Cincinnati and UCF instead of Akron and Central Michigan to make?

UH, you said yesterday you had to come to grips with the northeastern apathy for college football. The premise of UMass in FBS at Foxborough was that "Hey, look! Football!!" in the Boston DMA would be enough to get 25,000 in the stands buying hot dogs and beer. It didn't happen.