Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
I'm bored - realignment idea
Author Message
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #21
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea
Replace New Mexico with Hawaii then. 05-stirthepot
07-03-2013 09:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,478
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #22
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea
Re: OP

The AAC is left with UConn, USF, UCF, Temple, ECU, Temple, Navy, UMass, and Marshall. This is UConn's worst nightmare.
07-03-2013 10:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,478
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #23
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea
Re: OP

You're making some wild assumptions to get the SEC and PAC to 16.

If you're going to go through the mental gymnastics to make 3x16 while your conference stays at 14, why not just go the extra mile and add UC and UConn to the ACC? If 16 is the magic number, that's a lot more obvious than KSU to the SEC or SDSU, BYU, and Boise to the PAC.
07-03-2013 10:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,478
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #24
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea
Why KSU over UC in the SEC? They're both Northern schools with 2 BCS losses, except one has twice the alumni base, endowment, and market size as the other (hint: it's not KSU), and one has won multiple national championships in team sports and the other has zero (hint: it's not KSU).
07-03-2013 10:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jrj84105 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,689
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 252
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #25
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea
OK. So if the SEC, B1G, and ACC start saying you MUST have 14 teams to compete in the playoff, that's bad news for the PAC and BigXii. I think that unlikely scenario would play out like this: 8/10 BigXii teams vote to dissolve the conference- WV with a place in the SEC and state legislatures happy with KU/KSU, OU/OSU, TTU/UT/Baylor to the PAC. PAC adds UNM or UH for twenty. SEC buys out VT's GoR for 16. B1G takes UCONN and holds at an awkward 15 with a scheduling agreement with ND. ACC takes Cincinnati to replace VT while ISU and TCU fall back to the AAC along with SoMiss and UAB bringing both conferences to 14. The MWC adds UTEP+UTSA or UNT and a scheduling agreement with BYU to reach 14. People continue to await the next round of realignment.
07-03-2013 11:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #26
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea
(07-03-2013 10:01 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Re: OP

The AAC is left with UConn, USF, UCF, Temple, ECU, Temple, Navy, UMass, and Marshall. This is UConn's worst nightmare.

I'm not sure that UCONN isn't living their worst nightmare right now. I have nothing against the AAC, or it's members, but I would be surprised if most UCONN fans didn't feel like a fish out of water, or at least a salt water fish swimming in fresh water. Either way, I think that UCONN could develop nice rivalries with UMASS and Temple, and I think that USF and UCF have the potential to field very competitive teams, and there are worse things in life than having to go to Florida.

That said, I think that you're right that they would not be overly enthused about it.
07-03-2013 11:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #27
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea
(07-03-2013 10:19 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Re: OP

You're making some wild assumptions to get the SEC and PAC to 16.

If you're going to go through the mental gymnastics to make 3x16 while your conference stays at 14, why not just go the extra mile and add UC and UConn to the ACC? If 16 is the magic number, that's a lot more obvious than KSU to the SEC or SDSU, BYU, and Boise to the PAC.
1. I never said it would happen, but for conversation, what assumptions do you think I'm making which are wild?

2. UC isn't a good fit for the ACC and nobody in the ACC wants UCONN, and some schools really, really don't want UCONN (BC).

3. It was Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, SDSU, and either BSU or BYU to the Pac, not BYU and BSU. However, SDSU could be traded with a number of schools (TCU, Baylor, or SMU) Actually, depending on how willing CU is, and that their athletic dept. looks like, it could be one of BYU, BSU, and CSU.
(This post was last modified: 07-04-2013 12:01 AM by nzmorange.)
07-03-2013 11:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #28
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea
(07-03-2013 10:20 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Why KSU over UC in the SEC? They're both Northern schools with 2 BCS losses, except one has twice the alumni base, endowment, and market size as the other (hint: it's not KSU), and one has won multiple national championships in team sports and the other has zero (hint: it's not KSU).

KSU has more tradition and a more profitable athletic department. They also have the potential to quickly grow their athletic department faster than any other school. I think that this is often overlooked, but I read that KSU is more in the back than anyone else. Or, at the very least, they rank amongst the most profitable teams.
07-03-2013 11:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #29
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea
(07-03-2013 11:27 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  OK. So if the SEC, B1G, and ACC start saying you MUST have 14 teams to compete in the playoff, that's bad news for the PAC and BigXii. I think that unlikely scenario would play out like this: 8/10 BigXii teams vote to dissolve the conference- WV with a place in the SEC and state legislatures happy with KU/KSU, OU/OSU, TTU/UT/Baylor to the PAC. PAC adds UNM or UH for twenty. SEC buys out VT's GoR for 16. B1G takes UCONN and holds at an awkward 15 with a scheduling agreement with ND. ACC takes Cincinnati to replace VT while ISU and TCU fall back to the AAC along with SoMiss and UAB bringing both conferences to 14. The MWC adds UTEP+UTSA or UNT and a scheduling agreement with BYU to reach 14. People continue to await the next round of realignment.

I'm not sure that ND will ever associate with the B1G. ND fans really, really don't like that conference, or at least the ones that I know do. I don't think Gordon Gee's statements changed anything, but I do think that they illustrate the tension between the two organizations.

This is a side note that only tangentially relates to what you said, but I really, really hope that the Big XII expands and takes UC. UC deserves it, and I think that they would be a GREAT fit for the conference.
07-03-2013 11:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,478
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #30
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea
(07-03-2013 11:49 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(07-03-2013 10:19 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Re: OP

You're making some wild assumptions to get the SEC and PAC to 16.

If you're going to go through the mental gymnastics to make 3x16 while your conference stays at 14, why not just go the extra mile and add UC and UConn to the ACC? If 16 is the magic number, that's a lot more obvious than KSU to the SEC or SDSU, BYU, and Boise to the PAC.
1. I never said it would happen, but for conversation, what assumptions do you think I'm making which are wild?

2. UC isn't a good fit for the ACC and nobody in the ACC wants UCONN, and some schools really, really don't want UCONN (BC).

3. It was Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, SDSU, and either BSU or BYU to the Pac, not BYU and BSU. However, SDSU could be traded with a number of schools (TCU, Baylor, or SMU) Actually, depending on how willing CU is, and that their athletic dept. looks like, it could be one of BYU, BSU, and CSU.

Exactly. Not a good fit (Boise). And schools really, really, REALLY don't want them (BYU, SDSU).

A school with a 4-year graduation rate of 6% (Boise) is a horrible fit in the PAC. The ultra-liberal PAC schools HATE BYU for providing the political muscle behind prop 8 in California. And UCLA and USC view adding SDSU to the PAC exactly like OSU views adding UC to the Big 10, except that UC is much more of a peer to the rest of the Big 10 schools than SDSU is to the rest of the PAC.

And I missed this before, but TT and Ok St are just so far outside what the PAC is looking for that they didn't even want Ok St (the better of the two) and Oklahoma together when it was offered to them last summer.

How does KSU "fit" into the SEC? Culturally, it's a Northern school through and through. It's a geographic outlier, and academically it would be the lowest ranked SEC school outside of Mississippi. The only school it would have anything in common with is Oklahoma.

As far as "fit", UC actually fits really well in the ACC geographically (slightly West of the middle of the conference), academically (middle of the conference in every rating system except USNWR), and athletically (upper-middle in fb and bb). UC also has several natural rivals in the ACC (particularly Pitt and UL, but we've also shared a conference with VT, FSU, GT, ND, Syracuse, and UConn).
07-04-2013 09:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #31
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea
(07-04-2013 09:26 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(07-03-2013 11:49 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(07-03-2013 10:19 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Re: OP

You're making some wild assumptions to get the SEC and PAC to 16.

If you're going to go through the mental gymnastics to make 3x16 while your conference stays at 14, why not just go the extra mile and add UC and UConn to the ACC? If 16 is the magic number, that's a lot more obvious than KSU to the SEC or SDSU, BYU, and Boise to the PAC.
1. I never said it would happen, but for conversation, what assumptions do you think I'm making which are wild?

2. UC isn't a good fit for the ACC and nobody in the ACC wants UCONN, and some schools really, really don't want UCONN (BC).

3. It was Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, SDSU, and either BSU or BYU to the Pac, not BYU and BSU. However, SDSU could be traded with a number of schools (TCU, Baylor, or SMU) Actually, depending on how willing CU is, and that their athletic dept. looks like, it could be one of BYU, BSU, and CSU.

Exactly. Not a good fit (Boise). And schools really, really, REALLY don't want them (BYU, SDSU).

A school with a 4-year graduation rate of 6% (Boise) is a horrible fit in the PAC. The ultra-liberal PAC schools HATE BYU for providing the political muscle behind prop 8 in California. And UCLA and USC view adding SDSU to the PAC exactly like OSU views adding UC to the Big 10, except that UC is much more of a peer to the rest of the Big 10 schools than SDSU is to the rest of the PAC.

And I missed this before, but TT and Ok St are just so far outside what the PAC is looking for that they didn't even want Ok St (the better of the two) and Oklahoma together when it was offered to them last summer.

How does KSU "fit" into the SEC? Culturally, it's a Northern school through and through. It's a geographic outlier, and academically it would be the lowest ranked SEC school outside of Mississippi. The only school it would have anything in common with is Oklahoma.

As far as "fit", UC actually fits really well in the ACC geographically (slightly West of the middle of the conference), academically (middle of the conference in every rating system except USNWR), and athletically (upper-middle in fb and bb). UC also has several natural rivals in the ACC (particularly Pitt and UL, but we've also shared a conference with VT, FSU, GT, ND, Syracuse, and UConn).

A culture can always be expanded. When folks use the culture reason as why the inviting conference wouldn't invite a school, that doesn't make much sense to me. That could be a reason why a school wouldn't want to move to a particular conference and it works in that direction but not the other way around.

The Big Ten is a prime example of that concept. Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland. Proof positive.

The same could be said of the PAC. Why would the PAC end up going with Texas Tech, Kansas State and Iowa State? For the reasons stated in regards to the other schools in the geographical area. There are political reasons for those additions to not happen. With the three to the East, that extends the PAC into the Central Time Zone which means they can have that many more of their games shown on TV. They have been missing out on time slots because they could not play that early out West. With Tech, KSU and ISU they will get an immediate upgrade to their TV contracts due to being able to fill more early scheduling slots for the Networks.

Culturally Texas Tech is Southwestern. It is somewhat similar to the Arizona's. If it was the only Texas school in the PAC that would actually be great for Tech. I don't think the idea would ever be pondered by Tech...until now when we are seeing just how well the idea is working for The Aggies. If the Longhorns can secure a deal with the ACC like Notre Dame has then Tech will likely still play them every year. If Tech has good negotiators, that would absolutely be a part of their willingness to go along with the plan and Vote accordingly. They can build up their brand without losing their Texas game while at the same time getting out from under the Shadow.

Why ISU? Well they ARE AAU and folks in Iowa generally get along with all types because all types are in Iowa. ISU is a good fit for the PAC. Throw in KSU and suddenly Colorado has a decent group of old friends to belong with in the PAC. You have yourself a four team division.

After that, take your pick of perhaps New Mexico to go along with the Arizona's and Utah or maybe expand out to Hawaii to reach towards Asia. I have never understood that but I guess it is a PAC West Coast thing. Hawaii will also garner your conference extra games for the season.

It certainly isn't the Texoma-4 but it is much more realistic when looking at some kind of scenario where the Big 12 folds. The Texoma-4 isn't going out West. Not when the Eastern Conferences would be offering up their enticements against what the PAC has to offer.
07-04-2013 09:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Captain Bearcat Offline
All-American in Everything
*

Posts: 9,478
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 766
I Root For: UC
Location: IL & Cincinnati, USA
Post: #32
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea
(07-03-2013 11:52 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(07-03-2013 10:20 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Why KSU over UC in the SEC? They're both Northern schools with 2 BCS losses, except one has twice the alumni base, endowment, and market size as the other (hint: it's not KSU), and one has won multiple national championships in team sports and the other has zero (hint: it's not KSU).

KSU has more tradition and a more profitable athletic department. They also have the potential to quickly grow their athletic department faster than any other school. I think that this is often overlooked, but I read that KSU is more in the back than anyone else. Or, at the very least, they rank amongst the most profitable teams.

Tradition:
All that KSU has over UC in tradition is a good run in the 1990s in football. UC was better both before and after that. Before 1990, UC went to more official bowl games (2) than KSU (1). UC has a higher all-time winning percentage (51%) than KSU (44%). In the last 10 years, UC has a better bowl record (5-2 compared to 0-5) and UC has finished the season ranked more times (5) than KSU (4).

UC has more people enshrined in Canton (1), Cooperstown (2), and Springfield (2) than KSU (2 in Springfield, 0 in the others). In basketball, UC has won 2 national titles, while KSU has never won a national title in anything. UC has been to the Sweet 16 more times in the last 20 years (5) than KSU (1).

On top of that, some historians say that UC started the tradition of bowl games when we were invited to play against LSU after our 9-1 1896 season. UC also plays on the oldest playing field in FBS.


Profitability:
The difference between KSU and UC in revenue is $15 million. The difference between our conference revenue disbersements was somewhere between $14-16 million. If we had gotten the golden ticket to the Big 12 instead of WVU, we'd have the same revenue as KSU.

Potential:
KSU is the 2nd largest school in the smallest state in the Union with 2 BCS schools. UC is the 2nd largest school in the state that produces the 5th highest number of NFL draft picks. UC has almost double the alumni base of KSU, and more than triple the endowment.

UC just announced a stadium upgrade that is projected to increase profits by $3-5 million/year. It will increase revenue by much more than that, although for the first 10 years much of it will go to pay off the bonds that are financing part of the construction. This brings our total investment in athletic facilities to $220 million over the last 10 years.


Top-to-bottom, KSU isn't a bad athletic department by any means. But it does not have more profitability, potential, or tradition than UC.
07-04-2013 10:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #33
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea
KSU has a vote in whether or not the Big 12 gets dissolved. KSU has internal state ties with Kansas that mean it likely Kansas would have to make sure KSU has a good landing ground before they would be able to split with KSU.
07-04-2013 10:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jml2010 Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,282
Joined: Jan 2011
I Root For: Tx Tech & UNT
Location: Oklahoma
Post: #34
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea
(07-04-2013 10:23 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Top-to-bottom, KSU isn't a bad athletic department by any means. But it does not have more profitability, potential, or tradition than UC.

If to go box tommy and his bearcats were valuable, I'm absolutely positive a power conference would have invited them.

Have fun playing in the AAC.
07-04-2013 12:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #35
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea
(07-04-2013 09:26 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(07-03-2013 11:49 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(07-03-2013 10:19 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Re: OP

You're making some wild assumptions to get the SEC and PAC to 16.

If you're going to go through the mental gymnastics to make 3x16 while your conference stays at 14, why not just go the extra mile and add UC and UConn to the ACC? If 16 is the magic number, that's a lot more obvious than KSU to the SEC or SDSU, BYU, and Boise to the PAC.
1. I never said it would happen, but for conversation, what assumptions do you think I'm making which are wild?

2. UC isn't a good fit for the ACC and nobody in the ACC wants UCONN, and some schools really, really don't want UCONN (BC).

3. It was Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, SDSU, and either BSU or BYU to the Pac, not BYU and BSU. However, SDSU could be traded with a number of schools (TCU, Baylor, or SMU) Actually, depending on how willing CU is, and that their athletic dept. looks like, it could be one of BYU, BSU, and CSU.

Exactly. Not a good fit (Boise). And schools really, really, REALLY don't want them (BYU, SDSU).

A school with a 4-year graduation rate of 6% (Boise) is a horrible fit in the PAC. The ultra-liberal PAC schools HATE BYU for providing the political muscle behind prop 8 in California. And UCLA and USC view adding SDSU to the PAC exactly like OSU views adding UC to the Big 10, except that UC is much more of a peer to the rest of the Big 10 schools than SDSU is to the rest of the PAC.

And I missed this before, but TT and Ok St are just so far outside what the PAC is looking for that they didn't even want Ok St (the better of the two) and Oklahoma together when it was offered to them last summer.

How does KSU "fit" into the SEC? Culturally, it's a Northern school through and through. It's a geographic outlier, and academically it would be the lowest ranked SEC school outside of Mississippi. The only school it would have anything in common with is Oklahoma.

As far as "fit", UC actually fits really well in the ACC geographically (slightly West of the middle of the conference), academically (middle of the conference in every rating system except USNWR), and athletically (upper-middle in fb and bb). UC also has several natural rivals in the ACC (particularly Pitt and UL, but we've also shared a conference with VT, FSU, GT, ND, Syracuse, and UConn).

*Lubbock is in western Texas and Stillwater is in central Oklahoma. Neither are extreme geographical outliers for the Pac. Yes, they would be on the frontier, but the west is much less dense than the east, so distance matters a lot less. Don't get me wrong, geography still matters, but it matters a lot less. And really, there aren't that many options out west. This is one of those situations where a school wouldn't have to be a great fit. It would just have to be acceptable and better than the rest. Also, I haven't seen any reports of OSU getting shot down by the Pac. I saw some of Texas, OU, OSU, and TTech getting shot down, but that is a very different scenario. That got shot down because the Pac wouldn't let Texas keep the LHN, Texas wouldn't join without it, and the other 3 didn't want to leave the Big XII if Texas was going to stay in it.

*BSU and SDSU are more out of necessity. There aren't as many major schools in the west.

*The Ultra Liberal Pac schools are OK with Oregon State and Washington State.... Politics and conference affiliation do not go hand in hand.

*Kansas State is not a culturally northern school. Manhattan Kansas and Manhattan NYC are two very, very, very different places. KSU is a Midwestern school, and it has shared conference affiliations with Oklahoma and Texas A&M, and, but for the '91 SEC expansion, would have shared an affiliation with Arkansas. If Mizzou to the SEC was alright last year, why is KSU to a more western-minded SEC suddenly not? KSU academics aren't killer, but the SEC isn't exactly known for caring about academics.

*UL is a HUGE ACC outlier. Taking UL out, UC would be the western-most full member in an eastern conference and on the wrong side of the App Mountains. Even then, although ND (aka the reason why I had to qualify my previous statement with "full member" instead of "member") is located in the Midwest, it has an eastern focus. UC would not be in the upper half of the ACC in basketball, and it would be in the middle of the pack in football most years. UC is not in the middle of the pack in academics. It just isn't and the only ratings that say it is do so because it has an engineering school, a science department, and a medical school, so research dollars are high. Research spending has nothing to do with academics. A university with a #1 business school, a #1 government school, a #1 math department, but no engineering, no med school, and an average science dept. isn't a worse school than a school with an average engineering dept., an average med school, an average science department, a terrible math department, no government department, and no business school. However, it would bring in more research dollars. To pretend like UC would have middle of the road ACC academics is just not factually accurate.

*And no school in the ACC considers UC a rival, except UL. Also, UCONN isn't in the ACC FYI.
(This post was last modified: 07-04-2013 03:24 PM by nzmorange.)
07-04-2013 02:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #36
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea
(07-04-2013 10:23 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(07-03-2013 11:52 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  
(07-03-2013 10:20 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Why KSU over UC in the SEC? They're both Northern schools with 2 BCS losses, except one has twice the alumni base, endowment, and market size as the other (hint: it's not KSU), and one has won multiple national championships in team sports and the other has zero (hint: it's not KSU).

KSU has more tradition and a more profitable athletic department. They also have the potential to quickly grow their athletic department faster than any other school. I think that this is often overlooked, but I read that KSU is more in the back than anyone else. Or, at the very least, they rank amongst the most profitable teams.

Tradition:
All that KSU has over UC in tradition is a good run in the 1990s in football. UC was better both before and after that. Before 1990, UC went to more official bowl games (2) than KSU (1). UC has a higher all-time winning percentage (51%) than KSU (44%). In the last 10 years, UC has a better bowl record (5-2 compared to 0-5) and UC has finished the season ranked more times (5) than KSU (4).

UC has more people enshrined in Canton (1), Cooperstown (2), and Springfield (2) than KSU (2 in Springfield, 0 in the others). In basketball, UC has won 2 national titles, while KSU has never won a national title in anything. UC has been to the Sweet 16 more times in the last 20 years (5) than KSU (1).

On top of that, some historians say that UC started the tradition of bowl games when we were invited to play against LSU after our 9-1 1896 season. UC also plays on the oldest playing field in FBS.


Profitability:
The difference between KSU and UC in revenue is $15 million. The difference between our conference revenue disbersements was somewhere between $14-16 million. If we had gotten the golden ticket to the Big 12 instead of WVU, we'd have the same revenue as KSU.

Potential:
KSU is the 2nd largest school in the smallest state in the Union with 2 BCS schools. UC is the 2nd largest school in the state that produces the 5th highest number of NFL draft picks. UC has almost double the alumni base of KSU, and more than triple the endowment.

UC just announced a stadium upgrade that is projected to increase profits by $3-5 million/year. It will increase revenue by much more than that, although for the first 10 years much of it will go to pay off the bonds that are financing part of the construction. This brings our total investment in athletic facilities to $220 million over the last 10 years.


Top-to-bottom, KSU isn't a bad athletic department by any means. But it does not have more profitability, potential, or tradition than UC.
Profitability/revenue
Read the title of the article:
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/blog/_/name/...10-11-file

Revenue was down last year, but they still made $12.28 million, which would have put them at #4 amongst public school by the previous year's numbers, behind only Texas, LSU, and Alabama.

UC spent what it made ($39,577,731), so UC's profit was $0 last year.

And no. KSU made $63,557,922 last year. $63,557,922 - $39,577,731 is not $15,000,000. It's $23,980,191.
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/

Also, the BIG EAST distributes $9,288,044 to UC, whereas the Big XII distributed $22,835,752 million to KSU. That's about a $13.55 million difference (less expenses), not $14-16 million.
http://b2.caspio.com/dp.asp

That's a difference of $10,432,483 in revenue that has nothing to do with conference distributions, and, KSU isn't trying to max out revenue, whereas UC is. This is evidenced by the fact that UC spends 100% of revenue, whereas KSU doesn't.

Strength of the athletic dept.
FOOTBALL: KSU has finished ranked in the top 25 12 times in the last 20 years, and has been ranked in the top 10 6 of those times.

BASKETBALL: KSU is widely regarded as the best team to never win a title. Yes, I know UC has killer '61, '62, and '63 seasons, but UC hasn't set the world on fire since. And yes, I know KSU is better in the regular season, but that's what sells tickets. KSU v. UK v. UF for the SEC crown would be HUGE. UC v. UK v. UF just doesn't sound as big, especially since KSU in the SEC would also bring an OOC game against KU every year (or possibly a home and home every year), which is TV GOLD.

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against UC and think that the Big XII should have added UC and UL when they added WVU. I just don't think UC is a better fit for the SEC+OU than KSU, and UC is a very, very bad fit for the ACC, so I don't think that will ever happen.
(This post was last modified: 07-04-2013 03:57 PM by nzmorange.)
07-04-2013 02:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BigHouston Offline
STRONG
*

Posts: 12,203
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation: 362
I Root For: HOUSTON, USC Trojans
Location: Houston Tx
Post: #37
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea
(07-02-2013 09:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Not bad....but your scenario requires the passing of over a decade before it can happen. For a realignment idea due to being bored....you are bordering on being a masochist. 03-nutkick

In order for Texas to move to the ACC anytime soon enough for us to actually talk about it now, it will require a disintegration of the Big 12 as a whole. That requires votes and getting votes means making those schools comfortable that they have a place at the table after the Big 12 goes bye bye.

That means you cannot cut out as many Big 12 schools as you have done.

Giving Texas that kind of deal means the ACC can take two more Big 12 schools in order to help this happen. I realize as fans you guys go 03-puke over whom I and others have talked about going with Texas to the ACC but take a look at the whole picture. If the ACC goes along with that then the talk about which one of the two conferences survives and which one dies will be over. If you take Baylor you get a great basketball program and more coverage in the State of Texas which could really help the ACC boost themselves from the bottom up in competitiveness in football. I am not talking about the FSU's of the ACC, I am talking about the Pitt's and the Virginia's and the NC State's.

Perhaps the ACC can bargain for Baylor and WVU but if the SEC wants WVU out of the deal then likely WVU will go to them. I don't see what is so bad about tripling up in the State of Texas for the ACC. A scheduling agreement with Texas and their boost to the ACC's Bowl agreements. Bring in Baylor and TCU and suddenly Texas is an Atlantic Ocean bordering State that is absolutely ACC Territory as much as it is anyone else's. Is that really so horrible?

ACC
North
Miami
Boston College
Pitt
Syracuse

Mid-Atlantic
North Carolina
Virginia Tech
Virginia
Duke

South
FSU
Clemson
Georgia Tech
North Carolina State

West
Louisville
Baylor
TCU
Wake Forest

That ACC right there has all the elements to be wildly successful. Remember it has the power of Notre Dame and Texas added to it's SoS AND it's Bowl Negotiating strength. This line up would allow your historical powers to all remain such in regards to leading to a four team conference tournament while at the same time it allows some of your new schools with improving national programs to continue that trend.

In regards to getting enough Big 12 schools. I think we would see WVU definitely going to the SEC and personally I do believe Oklahoma would choose the Big Ten, if the Big Ten wanted them. Oklahoma's program is sliding downwards, not upwards. Moving into the SEC would only accelerate that trend where as membership in the Big Ten would "artificially" keep them propped up at the top of the rankings as well as being a regular participant in the National Scene. The SEC would be just as well off with Oklahoma State. In fact they might be better off with OSU considering what they actually need. Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big Ten and WVU and OSU to the SEC.


Big Ten
East
Ohio State
Penn State
Maryland
Rutgers

North
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue

Midwest
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Illinois
Minnesota

West
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Iowa
Kansas

This would be a dream set up for so many in the Big Ten. If a Tournament was suddenly in the pipeline, I think most folks would see a "miraculous" change of opinion at Michigan and Ohio State about them having to be in the same division and playing in the final week of the regular season. Traditions pass all the time, it just takes enough temptation for folks to move on. There is a ton of brand potential in that line up.

SEC
East
Florida
Georgia
South Carolina
Auburn

Central
Alabama
Ole Miss
Vanderbilt
Miss State

West
LSU
Texas A&M
Arkansas
Oklahoma State

Border
Tennessee
West Virginia
Kentucky
Missouri

Edit: Had to change my SEC commentary. It is not possible for them to get ECU without giving up on WVU and that is not going to happen. ECU will have to work towards domination at the Mid-Major level and hope for inclusion in an 8 team National Playoff. WVU and Oklahoma State are many leaps ahead of ECU still and that North Carolina market is nice but the Bigger Picture calls.


The PAC is the conference that has the least say in all of this. They have zero potential expansions currently so really any Big 12 programs are an improvement over their current choices. That means the likes of Iowa State, Kansas State and Texas Tech move out West. Those three give the PAC three much needed locations to display PAC matchups in the Central Time Zone. That alone gives them a big boost to their TV contracts. They can have PAC games playing in every single scheduling time. Currently they miss out. Toss one more in as you desire. Personally I think New Mexico makes for a good add.


PAC
North
Oregon
Washington
Oregon State
Wash State

West
USC
UCLA
Stanford
California

South
Arizona
Arizona State
Utah
New Mexico/Colorado

East
Texas Tech
Kansas State
Iowa State
Colorado/New Mexico

Personally I would have Colorado with it's previous Big 12 conference mates. It works better geographically. Texas Tech may have issues with being "Left Behind" but this isn't all bad for them. Just like how the Aggies are moving on to be their own Brand instead of living under the Longhorn shadow, the same can be said of Tech in this scenario. They will be the regular team to beat in that division and a regular participant in the PAC's four team tournament. That will boost Tech's National Recognition. Since their division isn't all that tough, they won't need to worry so much about having a fully padded OOC schedule. A 9 game conference schedule means 3 OOC games and they can schedule 2-3 of those all in the State of Texas. That really isn't so bad at all. Texas is going to have 7 open OOC games on their schedule with that new ACC arrangement. Pretty sure Tech will be a regular in that scenario.


A scenario like this could potentially happen where as one that doesn't take enough of the Big 12 into consideration is really just idle chat to pass the time.

Love the PAC West, clearly the best football division.
(This post was last modified: 07-07-2013 03:42 PM by BigHouston.)
07-07-2013 03:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #38
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea
Having the West division like that also insures that all the programs that depend upon being seen in California will continue to be seen there every single year. If you split up the California schools then that means not every school that wants to play in California every year will be able to do so.

In terms of the here and now it is the strongest but California doesn't have a history of strong football. They have strong teams from time to time but not all the time. The same can be said of Stanford. UCLA is definitely building under Mora but they are by no means a perennial power. Only USC is and quite frankly they have real issues in regards to making use of all that potential that USC gets in recruits.

On paper it definitely looks to be the strongest but a set up like this is permanent and in the long run I don't necessarily think it will be all that unbalanced and it answers the very real issue that the rest of the current PAC schools would have with further expansion. They want yearly exposure within California.
07-07-2013 06:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #39
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea
(07-07-2013 07:01 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  If UC is such a bad fit for the ACC, please explain to me why Syracuse is a good fit.
Well the first 10 things that come to mind are:
1. Academics are almost exactly the middle of the ACC (#58) and we're private (see WF, Duke, Miami, Boston College, and Pitt [kind of] and compare that to any other BC conference)
2. There have been 20+ years of back and forth interest (solicitation of interest in '91, invite and rescinded invite in '03, and actual invite in '10)
3. Our basketball program is elite (top 5 in all-time wins and top 5 in attendance every year since 1980)
4. Our football program is storied (top 15 in wins, Heisman, Maxwell, top 10 in pro and college hall of famers, position award named after a SU grad., etc. etc.) and has a tradition of being one of the old northeastern teams (which was important to UMD and BC)
5. BC was in desperate need of a friend and Pitt needed a partner
6. Our athletic dept., which is coming out of an off decade in football, made over $73 million two years ago (most recent numbers available) and posted a profit, and that number has only grown (significantly).
7. We have a recent history with Miami, BC, and VTech (and Pitt who joined with us)
8. We're in a state that touches the Atlantic Ocean (that was a requirement until ND was added as a partial and then UL was added as a necessity)
9. The conference was interested in expanding its presence in NYC and SU (arguably) has the biggest basketball following in the city and (arguably) the 3rd biggest football following in the city
10. Our Lax program is legendary, which matters/mattered in the ACC (see UMD, Duke, UNC, and UVA) and our other sports programs are very solid.

Btw, I want to make sure that this is clear: I'm not trying to put UC down. Just because UC doesn't fit the ACC that well doesn't mean it's bad. IMO, UC would fit the Big XII very well, but Syracuse wouldn't at all.
(This post was last modified: 07-07-2013 08:38 PM by nzmorange.)
07-07-2013 08:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
nzmorange Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,000
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 279
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #40
RE: I'm bored - realignment idea
(07-02-2013 09:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Not bad....but your scenario requires the passing of over a decade before it can happen. For a realignment idea due to being bored....you are bordering on being a masochist. 03-nutkick

In order for Texas to move to the ACC anytime soon enough for us to actually talk about it now, it will require a disintegration of the Big 12 as a whole. That requires votes and getting votes means making those schools comfortable that they have a place at the table after the Big 12 goes bye bye.

That means you cannot cut out as many Big 12 schools as you have done.

Giving Texas that kind of deal means the ACC can take two more Big 12 schools in order to help this happen. I realize as fans you guys go 03-puke over whom I and others have talked about going with Texas to the ACC but take a look at the whole picture. If the ACC goes along with that then the talk about which one of the two conferences survives and which one dies will be over. If you take Baylor you get a great basketball program and more coverage in the State of Texas which could really help the ACC boost themselves from the bottom up in competitiveness in football. I am not talking about the FSU's of the ACC, I am talking about the Pitt's and the Virginia's and the NC State's.

Perhaps the ACC can bargain for Baylor and WVU but if the SEC wants WVU out of the deal then likely WVU will go to them. I don't see what is so bad about tripling up in the State of Texas for the ACC. A scheduling agreement with Texas and their boost to the ACC's Bowl agreements. Bring in Baylor and TCU and suddenly Texas is an Atlantic Ocean bordering State that is absolutely ACC Territory as much as it is anyone else's. Is that really so horrible?

ACC
North
Miami
Boston College
Pitt
Syracuse

Mid-Atlantic
North Carolina
Virginia Tech
Virginia
Duke

South
FSU
Clemson
Georgia Tech
North Carolina State

West
Louisville
Baylor
TCU
Wake Forest

That ACC right there has all the elements to be wildly successful. Remember it has the power of Notre Dame and Texas added to it's SoS AND it's Bowl Negotiating strength. This line up would allow your historical powers to all remain such in regards to leading to a four team conference tournament while at the same time it allows some of your new schools with improving national programs to continue that trend.

In regards to getting enough Big 12 schools. I think we would see WVU definitely going to the SEC and personally I do believe Oklahoma would choose the Big Ten, if the Big Ten wanted them. Oklahoma's program is sliding downwards, not upwards. Moving into the SEC would only accelerate that trend where as membership in the Big Ten would "artificially" keep them propped up at the top of the rankings as well as being a regular participant in the National Scene. The SEC would be just as well off with Oklahoma State. In fact they might be better off with OSU considering what they actually need. Kansas and Oklahoma to the Big Ten and WVU and OSU to the SEC.


Big Ten
East
Ohio State
Penn State
Maryland
Rutgers

North
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue

Midwest
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Illinois
Minnesota

West
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Iowa
Kansas

This would be a dream set up for so many in the Big Ten. If a Tournament was suddenly in the pipeline, I think most folks would see a "miraculous" change of opinion at Michigan and Ohio State about them having to be in the same division and playing in the final week of the regular season. Traditions pass all the time, it just takes enough temptation for folks to move on. There is a ton of brand potential in that line up.

SEC
East
Florida
Georgia
South Carolina
Auburn

Central
Alabama
Ole Miss
Vanderbilt
Miss State

West
LSU
Texas A&M
Arkansas
Oklahoma State

Border
Tennessee
West Virginia
Kentucky
Missouri

Edit: Had to change my SEC commentary. It is not possible for them to get ECU without giving up on WVU and that is not going to happen. ECU will have to work towards domination at the Mid-Major level and hope for inclusion in an 8 team National Playoff. WVU and Oklahoma State are many leaps ahead of ECU still and that North Carolina market is nice but the Bigger Picture calls.


The PAC is the conference that has the least say in all of this. They have zero potential expansions currently so really any Big 12 programs are an improvement over their current choices. That means the likes of Iowa State, Kansas State and Texas Tech move out West. Those three give the PAC three much needed locations to display PAC matchups in the Central Time Zone. That alone gives them a big boost to their TV contracts. They can have PAC games playing in every single scheduling time. Currently they miss out. Toss one more in as you desire. Personally I think New Mexico makes for a good add.


PAC
North
Oregon
Washington
Oregon State
Wash State

West
USC
UCLA
Stanford
California

South
Arizona
Arizona State
Utah
New Mexico/Colorado

East
Texas Tech
Kansas State
Iowa State
Colorado/New Mexico

Personally I would have Colorado with it's previous Big 12 conference mates. It works better geographically. Texas Tech may have issues with being "Left Behind" but this isn't all bad for them. Just like how the Aggies are moving on to be their own Brand instead of living under the Longhorn shadow, the same can be said of Tech in this scenario. They will be the regular team to beat in that division and a regular participant in the PAC's four team tournament. That will boost Tech's National Recognition. Since their division isn't all that tough, they won't need to worry so much about having a fully padded OOC schedule. A 9 game conference schedule means 3 OOC games and they can schedule 2-3 of those all in the State of Texas. That really isn't so bad at all. Texas is going to have 7 open OOC games on their schedule with that new ACC arrangement. Pretty sure Tech will be a regular in that scenario.


A scenario like this could potentially happen where as one that doesn't take enough of the Big 12 into consideration is really just idle chat to pass the time.

I don't think that the NC school will leave each other.
07-07-2013 08:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.