#3 in a state of 4 million, with an enrollment of <5k is not a recipe for long term success at a high level.

ODU just got a home and home with NC State, very winnable games imo.

(03-30-2013 02:31 PM)Texas2Step Wrote:  #3 in a state of 4 million, with an enrollment of <5k is not a recipe for long term success at a high level.

ODU just got a home and home with NC State, very winnable games imo.

Sounds to me you are a newbie coming into the Big TBA and bringing Tulsa slamming over with you from Conference USA.

The funny thing is that its highly likely that Houston was one of the newbies pushing hard for Tulsa to be added. For one thing, Houston wanted a school added that would boost the chances that the Big TBA champion would be the Group of Five representative in the Access Bowls.

(03-30-2013 02:25 PM)Texas2Step Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 12:58 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 01:19 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-28-2013 10:59 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(03-28-2013 09:23 AM)goldenhurricane2 Wrote:  Lots of hate here - yikes.

Common thing, and even expected; when those around you think they are much better than you.... Even when equal for the most part.

Equal??? ROTFLMAO.

Comparable schools cluster together to form conferences. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you going to be sharing one with Tulsa?

And you will be sharing one with Florida Atlantic. What is your point?

Exactly.

Comparable tv contracts for both conferences (1 mill or so a year is not a wide gap when compared to the Big 5).

Point? Looking down your nose at your future conference mate Tulsa, when you are viewed as the same is not a recipe for long term success at a high level either.

BTW- Success at a high level means you are beating Notre Dame, USC, Stanford, Michigan, Nebraska, Florida, FLorida St, and so on.

(03-28-2013 09:08 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Adding Tulsa is a terrible decision. Short term success in football is not a good reason to add a program.

I can now hardly wait until Tulsa kicks UConn's ass. I suggest that you study this for a little more appreciation for Tulsa's "recent" success.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_Golde...e_football

Please note how Tulsa played for the national championship about 70 years ago. Their basketball tradition isn't all that bad either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_Golde...basketball

Every member of our new conference brings something special to the table, and we all have a wart or two. I am personally excited about the great potential that we have together and look forward to the fun.

(03-30-2013 02:31 PM)Texas2Step Wrote:  #3 in a state of 4 million, with an enrollment of <5k is not a recipe for long term success at a high level.

ODU just got a home and home with NC State, very winnable games imo.

for NC State

Melky whips me but I see his point.

That said its gonna be really fun beating uconn like a red headed stepchild.

Was there a hesitancy to add UMass because of UConn's not-so-secret desire to go to the ACC?

Adding UMass probably locks football into a north-south alignment

Conn/Mass
Navy/ECU
Temple/Cincinnati

UCF/USF
Tulane/Memphis
SMU/Houston

(03-31-2013 08:45 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Was there a hesitancy to add UMass because of UConn's not-so-secret desire to go to the ACC?

There could have been a hesitancy because UMass has not shown any ability to play football that would get anybody to tune in, whether in Massachusetts or elsewhere.

Quote: Adding UMass probably locks football into a north-south alignment

Conn/Mass
Navy/ECU
Temple/Cincinnati

UCF/USF
Tulane/Memphis
SMU/Houston

If at all possible, Cincinnati would prefer to be in the same division as the Florida schools. If not, it would definitely not want to be in a division that is in neither Florida nor Texas.

(03-30-2013 09:34 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 01:13 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Tulsa is a small, private school with 8 winning seasons in the past 25 years.

Or, in other word, they've only recently been successful in football.

Quote: Even UMass would have brought more to the party for the long term.

But the Big TBA have several eastern schools better than UMass already, they were looking for the best Western school they could add, for the coming Western division.

And unlike Tulsa, UMass doesn't bring any indication of ever having any success in football. If the Big TBA was going to reach down to the MAC for a school, they would have gone for one of the best football schools available, not one of the worst.

Indeed, there are likely a number of UMass fans more upset by their finish in the Hockey East cellar than by their finish in the MAC football cellar.

Quote: And they bring nothing in basketball.

If they brought a lot in BBall, they would have been invited in the last round. And I notice you didn't go back twenty five years to judge their BBall program, as you did with their FB program.

Divisions are arbitrary. There would still have been no problem setting up divisions even if the had picked a new add form somewhere in the Snow Belt.

I wouldn't say that UMass has had no success in football givne that they've won an BCS national championship and were runner up twice. What they haven't had is success at the FBS level, but they're new to that. We all understand that. A selection of UMass would be analogous to the B1G's selection of Rutgers or even Maryland. Little recent success from either program but great moves as institutional fits for the long term and great markets for TV revenue.

As for picking the best football school, that's been one of the big problems with the decision making throughout this entire process. Realignment isn't being driven by football, it's being driven by money. The big 5 power conferences have lots of members who are able to generate a lot of money through football Unfortunately the new football members of the Big Metro Whatever almost all play in the shadow of those big power programs, severely limiting the ability of the Big Metro to generate any money from their own football programs.

If the fortunes of the C7 vs the Big Metro have taught us anything, it's that football in and of itself doesn't generate money. It has to be the right football programs. If you're not one of those programs, you're not going to generate a whole lot of money from football. The Big Metro will be earning about half as much from their football & basketball combined that the C7+ will be earning from basketball alone. Programs like Louisville, Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Indiana earn huge dollars from their basketball programs and always have despite historically non-competitive football programs. Having focused so singularly on football, the Big metro has ignored almost every other consideration to their own detriment.

(03-30-2013 02:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 02:31 PM)Texas2Step Wrote:  #3 in a state of 4 million, with an enrollment of <5k is not a recipe for long term success at a high level.

ODU just got a home and home with NC State, very winnable games imo.

Sounds to me you are a newbie coming into the Big TBA and bringing Tulsa slamming over with you from Conference USA.

The funny thing is that its highly likely that Houston was one of the newbies pushing hard for Tulsa to be added. For one thing, Houston wanted a school added that would boost the chances that the Big TBA champion would be the Group of Five representative in the Access Bowls.

Why not address his point instead of issuing a personal attack?

The fact is that Tulsa is a small private school with an undergraduate enrollment of only 3,000 and a football program that currently draws about 20,000. They are located in a smallish state that already has 2 power conference programs, one of which is a legendary football program and the other of which has had a lot of success in basketball. There is a ceiling on anything that Tulsa can possibly bring to this conference.

That was his point and it still deserves a response.

(03-30-2013 06:06 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(03-28-2013 09:08 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Adding Tulsa is a terrible decision. Short term success in football is not a good reason to add a program.

I can now hardly wait until Tulsa kicks UConn's ass. I suggest that you study this for a little more appreciation for Tulsa's "recent" success.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_Golde...e_football

Please note how Tulsa played for the national championship about 70 years ago. Their basketball tradition isn't all that bad either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_Golde...basketball

Every member of our new conference brings something special to the table, and we all have a wart or two. I am personally excited about the great potential that we have together and look forward to the fun.

With all due respect, you're out of your mind.

Playing for a national championship 70 years ago is the best you can come up with???

How is a factoid from the 1940's the basis for making decisions on how to form a conference in the 21st century? Hint: it isn't.

1. Tulsa is a small private school of 3,000 undergrads.
2. They are not prominent in their own state.
3. They have a small fan base which only generates home attendance of 20,000 in football and 4,400 in basketball. Given their size, location, & in state competition, there is little hope that it will get any better.

My point isn't to knock Tulsa but to see them as they are. They simply don't bring anything to lift this conference out of mid major status in either revenue sport and they bring a small market that hurts the conference's ability to improve the TV contract.

BTW, I could care less if they beat UConn's ass in football. They're welcome to it. That really has nothing to do with making good decisions in forming conference membership.

(03-31-2013 10:29 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 02:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 02:31 PM)Texas2Step Wrote:  #3 in a state of 4 million, with an enrollment of <5k is not a recipe for long term success at a high level.

ODU just got a home and home with NC State, very winnable games imo.

Sounds to me you are a newbie coming into the Big TBA and bringing Tulsa slamming over with you from Conference USA.

The funny thing is that its highly likely that Houston was one of the newbies pushing hard for Tulsa to be added. For one thing, Houston wanted a school added that would boost the chances that the Big TBA champion would be the Group of Five representative in the Access Bowls.

Why not address his point instead of issuing a personal attack?

The fact is that Tulsa is a small private school with an undergraduate enrollment of only 3,000 and a football program that currently draws about 20,000. They are located in a smallish state that already has 2 power conference programs, one of which is a legendary football program and the other of which has had a lot of success in basketball. There is a ceiling on anything that Tulsa can possibly bring to this conference.

That was his point and it still deserves a response.

Texas2step has trashed Tulsa on every possible thread for the last month. Tulsa fans have put up facts concerning Tulsa over & over. No more bogus talk of reaching ceilings is needed.

Nothing you or he posts is worthy of a response.

(03-31-2013 10:29 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Why not address his point instead of issuing a personal attack?

Calling Houston, SMU, Memphis, UCF, Tulane or ECU "newbies" is not a personal attack, its just a statement of fact. So will Rutgers and Maryland be in the Big Ten in 2014.

Quote: The fact is that Tulsa is a small private school with an undergraduate enrollment of only 3,000 and a football program that currently draws about 20,000. They are located in a smallish state that already has 2 power conference programs, one of which is a legendary football program and the other of which has had a lot of success in basketball. There is a ceiling on anything that Tulsa can possibly bring to this conference.

But what it can bring to this conference at present is substantially greater than what UMass can bring. They weren't considering Sunbelt schools, they couldn't land MWC schools, so the choice was UMass, Marshall, UAB, Southern Miss, Rice, UTEP and Tulsa, and then among their preferences, whichever might be interested.

Median Sagarin power rating over the past three years:

Tulsa: 78.03 / 77.02 / 75.81 ~ 77.02
SMiss: 68.58 / 81.07 / 49.70 ~ 68.58
Rice: 58.17 / 64.45 / 65.49 ~ 64.45
Marshall: 59.57 / 67.49 / 61.25 ~ 61.25
UTEP: 58.80 / 63.71 / 56.55 ~ 58.80
UAB: 59.29 / 52.04 / 55.73 ~ 55.73
UMass: 60.60 / 52.34 / 46.83 ~ 52.34

Which is the question I asked several pages back: which other school is a better add? Certainly not UMass.

(03-31-2013 10:55 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 10:29 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Why not address his point instead of issuing a personal attack?

Calling Houston, SMU, Memphis, UCF, Tulane or ECU "newbies" is not a personal attack, its just a statement of fact. So will Rutgers and Maryland be in the Big Ten in 2014.

Quote: The fact is that Tulsa is a small private school with an undergraduate enrollment of only 3,000 and a football program that currently draws about 20,000. They are located in a smallish state that already has 2 power conference programs, one of which is a legendary football program and the other of which has had a lot of success in basketball. There is a ceiling on anything that Tulsa can possibly bring to this conference.

But what it can bring to this conference at present is substantially greater than what UMass can bring. They weren't considering Sunbelt schools, they couldn't land MWC schools, so the choice was UMass, Marshall, UAB, Southern Miss, Rice, UTEP and Tulsa, and then among their preferences, whichever might be interested.

Median Sagarin power rating over the past three years:

Tulsa: 78.03 / 77.02 / 75.81 ~ 77.02
SMiss: 68.58 / 81.07 / 49.70 ~ 68.58
Rice: 58.17 / 64.45 / 65.49 ~ 64.45
Marshall: 59.57 / 67.49 / 61.25 ~ 61.25
UTEP: 58.80 / 63.71 / 56.55 ~ 58.80
UAB: 59.29 / 52.04 / 55.73 ~ 55.73
UMass: 60.60 / 52.34 / 46.83 ~ 52.34

Which is the question I asked several pages back: which other school is a better add? Certainly not UMass.

Did Jim Delany put much thought into these same numbers before adding Rutgers and Maryland?

(03-31-2013 10:36 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 06:06 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(03-28-2013 09:08 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Adding Tulsa is a terrible decision. Short term success in football is not a good reason to add a program.

I can now hardly wait until Tulsa kicks UConn's ass. I suggest that you study this for a little more appreciation for Tulsa's "recent" success.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_Golde...e_football

Please note how Tulsa played for the national championship about 70 years ago. Their basketball tradition isn't all that bad either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_Golde...basketball

Every member of our new conference brings something special to the table, and we all have a wart or two. I am personally excited about the great potential that we have together and look forward to the fun.

With all due respect, you're out of your mind.

Playing for a national championship 70 years ago is the best you can come up with???

How is a factoid from the 1940's the basis for making decisions on how to form a conference in the 21st century? Hint: it isn't.

1. Tulsa is a small private school of 3,000 undergrads.
2. They are not prominent in their own state.
3. They have a small fan base which only generates home attendance of 20,000 in football and 4,400 in basketball. Given their size, location, & in state competition, there is little hope that it will get any better.

My point isn't to knock Tulsa but to see them as they are. They simply don't bring anything to lift this conference out of mid major status in either revenue sport and they bring a small market that hurts the conference's ability to improve the TV contract.

BTW, I could care less if they beat UConn's ass in football. They're welcome to it. That really has nothing to do with making good decisions in forming conference membership.

It doesn't matter who the conference adds. The big money, bigger money or even just slightly more money will not be there for the conference ever.

The decision has been made, the conference is mediocre, everybody wants out, nobody knows when they can possibly leave and the future will look a lot like CUSA did in 2000 - some schools will make the big time in a few years and not look back, but most will not.

That's it, that's all there is. Pretty simple. Now whose ready for summer!?






.

(03-31-2013 11:52 PM)Texas2Step Wrote:  Did Jim Delany put much thought into these same numbers before adding Rutgers and Maryland?

Delany's last two adds were Kings (even if one turned out to have a scandal lurking in the palace) ~ and they left the pressing needs of the Big Ten were more rapidly growing markets than the Big Ten footprint, which is growing more slowly than the country as a whole.

And Delany had a successful conference network, and was looking to suck money out of, eg, the poor saps in Trenton who had cable to watch the Game of Thrones on HBO.

If the Big Ten ends up with the New Jersey slice of the Greater New York media market, Maryland and a substantial presence in DC, and solidifies its position in Philadelphia, with is the pro forma "Big Ten City" where it presently has the weakest position, the Rutgers and Maryland adds will prove worthwhile.

IMV, though (shockingly) Delany doesn't consult me, the Big Ten should not expand very much further unless that includes another King. While conference realignment speculators might wish that the Big Ten would just get on with it so that we know what the next big move is going to be, the Big Ten has met its most pressing needs, and is in a position to play a waiting game if the schools that would best meet its needs are not presently available.

The Big TBA is a different conference in a different situation with different needs, one of the foremost being the need to establish itself as a perennial contender for Group of Five rep status once the Access Bowl system starts.

(04-01-2013 12:12 AM)Fireman451 Wrote:  It doesn't matter who the conference adds. The big money, bigger money or even just slightly more money will not be there for the conference ever.

Be that as it may be, they aren't going to just throw in the towel. They'll adopt a strategy to do as well as they can.

If the ACC gets pushed down into the Mid-Majors, by being raided, they'll raid the Big TBA, some of the Big TBA schools will end up in the conference that actually is the Best of the Rest, the Big TBA will raid Conference USA to reload, Conference USA will raid the Sunbelt, and all along the way the conference organization will work to survive as best they are able.

(04-01-2013 01:42 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 11:52 PM)Texas2Step Wrote:  Did Jim Delany put much thought into these same numbers before adding Rutgers and Maryland?

Delany's last two adds were Kings (even if one turned out to have a scandal lurking in the palace) ~ and they left the pressing needs of the Big Ten were more rapidly growing markets than the Big Ten footprint, which is growing more slowly than the country as a whole.

And Delany had a successful conference network, and was looking to suck money out of, eg, the poor saps in Trenton who had cable to watch the Game of Thrones on HBO.

If the Big Ten ends up with the New Jersey slice of the Greater New York media market, Maryland and a substantial presence in DC, and solidifies its position in Philadelphia, with is the pro forma "Big Ten City" where it presently has the weakest position, the Rutgers and Maryland adds will prove worthwhile.

IMV, though (shockingly) Delany doesn't consult me, the Big Ten should not expand very much further unless that includes another King. While conference realignment speculators might wish that the Big Ten would just get on with it so that we know what the next big move is going to be, the Big Ten has met its most pressing needs, and is in a position to play a waiting game if the schools that would best meet its needs are not presently available.

Actually, if you listened to Wisconsin's AD, you'd know that Delaney added Rutgers and Maryland to keep Penn State in the fold long-term. Without that add, PSU eventually would have bolted for the ACC.

The markets were just a nice bonus. The real benefit, in chess parlance, of adding the knights to the board was to protect his king.

(04-01-2013 06:27 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Actually, if you listened to Wisconsin's AD, you'd know that Delaney added Rutgers and Maryland to keep Penn State in the fold long-term. Without that add, PSU eventually would have bolted for the ACC.

The markets were just a nice bonus. The real benefit, in chess parlance, of adding the knights to the board was to protect his king.

I've heard that, just not sure I'm convinced that its the dominant factor its sometime made out to be. When writing it up at more length, I do add settling whining by Penn State about more eastern schools as a secondary factor.

But Eastern Markets factor into that as well ~ Philadelphia is the most rapidly growing part of Pennsylvania, and its also where Penn State's dominance is most strongly contested. And Philadelphia's northern suburbs spill over into southern New Jersey.

(03-31-2013 10:36 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 06:06 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(03-28-2013 09:08 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Adding Tulsa is a terrible decision. Short term success in football is not a good reason to add a program.

I can now hardly wait until Tulsa kicks UConn's ass. I suggest that you study this for a little more appreciation for Tulsa's "recent" success.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_Golde...e_football

Please note how Tulsa played for the national championship about 70 years ago. Their basketball tradition isn't all that bad either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_Golde...basketball

Every member of our new conference brings something special to the table, and we all have a wart or two. I am personally excited about the great potential that we have together and look forward to the fun.

With all due respect, you're out of your mind.

Playing for a national championship 70 years ago is the best you can come up with???

How is a factoid from the 1940's the basis for making decisions on how to form a conference in the 21st century? Hint: it isn't.

1. Tulsa is a small private school of 3,000 undergrads.
2. They are not prominent in their own state.
3. They have a small fan base which only generates home attendance of 20,000 in football and 4,400 in basketball. Given their size, location, & in state competition, there is little hope that it will get any better.

My point isn't to knock Tulsa but to see them as they are. They simply don't bring anything to lift this conference out of mid major status in either revenue sport and they bring a small market that hurts the conference's ability to improve the TV contract.

BTW, I could care less if they beat UConn's ass in football. They're welcome to it. That really has nothing to do with making good decisions in forming conference membership.

Melky, you must be the one one that's lost it. Let me try and explain this for you...first set down, take a deep breath.....OK are you ready. Here it is, read slow and carefully: Nobody can bring anything to lift the No Name Conference out of Mid Major staues in either revenue sport.

Now that you honestly think Tulsa is just outright a horrible addition why don't you give us all your opinion of who should have been ahead of Tulsa?


I suspect your panties are in a wad because Tulsa isn't in the Northeast and that is the one and only reason.

And lastly.....do you have the hard numbers and the IN DEPTH market research to back up your assertion against Tulsa being added or is it just your opinion. And don't give none of this BS about markets and all because a team has to be able to carry whatever market, I don't care how big it is and if they can't and you still add it waters everything down...show us all the facts and not your opinion. Let me remind you this is 2013, the age of the internet, the age of social networking, the age of the I phone, the age of transcending the market you play in, a new age where print media is dead, and age that is contunuing to unfold.....and on and on and on and on. College athletics HAS A GREAT MANY TEAMS (public and priate) from smaller markets that bring it and some from HUGE markets that are also rans, if that. Everything comes down to branding and who has the better brand...as this stage that's all you can go after because it's slim pickings.

Your probably whining because Northeast UCONN is now stuck with a bunch of cowboys and hillbillies and it just burns you up to no end. It burns you because, well UCONN is just so much better culturally and in every other way. Oh and one other thing that might surprise you, UCONN has most likely reached its ceiling as a FBS FB program. UCONN is never going to be even a 55,000 attendance team much less 65000/80000....that's my OPINION.

And to the point of Tulsa not being prminenet in Oklahoma....duh! why don't you get a freaking brain and stop acting so stuck up. This is a NO NAME CONFERENCE AS WE SPEAK.....this isn't the SEC so what's the point?

BTW, UCONN is prominent exactly where? Answer that.....it can't be the North East or tiny Connecticut.....heck, it's not even real football in the Northeast, I've heard Northeast college Football referenced as a sport called "almost football"......So just stop looking down on other programs and fans and simply accept UCONN is stuck with the cowboys and hillbilles.


You probably honesty and truly think UMASS should be the oned added, and the main reasin being they are in the Northeast.

Tiger85, you do know that UConn games are broadcast nationally in NYC, right? To say they don't have value is asanine. And they average upwards of 40k in football, and over 10k in basketball regularly, and have recent national titles. Tulsa cannot put 30k fans in the stands. Yes, we aren't the SEC, but to simply gloss over these types of things and be OK with it is worrying to others who do want to see growth in a conference. That is why we're here, right?