It is sad that you can't see my argument. You claim TV markets play a role by itself in its admission into a P5 conference otherwise you wouldn't be blasting me for claiming on the field product is just as big as a factor as geography and TV market.
If B12 Expands this Year, We're Out
- Thread starter CBlackwellRN
- Start date
It is sad that you can't see my argument. You claim TV markets play a role by itself in its admission into a P5 conference otherwise you wouldn't be blasting me for claiming on the field product is just as big as a factor as geography and TV market.
Just showed actual evidence showing we did, but why worry about that when you can just make statements on the internet?
This is a real concern for G5's. Just look at USF and the hell they've been living for the past 5 years or so.
1 time. Hardly solidifies your point.
50 years ago market meant nothing. Today it's 30% to 60% of the equation probably.
G5s have to jump through hoops original P5s never did. See Utah and TCU. Tulane would still be SEC if market size and crazy tv money was on anyone's mind. It was all the gate and donors.
It shows that we can do exactly what someone claimed we couldn't. I've got the source right there if you want to find more examples.
Are you stupid? Why did West Virginia get in to the big 12 over say Houston (#10 TV Market)? SUCCESS ON THE FIELD MATTERS JUST AS MUCH. A school in a big tv market won't make it into the P5 if their athletics/fanbase aren't great and a school with great athletics won't make it into the P5 if they are in a small TV market.
NEWSFLASH: UCF athletics/fanbase isn't great and they are in a big TV market therefore NO POWER 5 INVITE. CAPEESH?
Yes, I'm the dumb one, you're the genius here who can't even keep our disagreement straight.
Your comment that I'm pointing out was stupid, is that success is 'just as big of a factor' as the overall economic factors such as fan support, television market, demographics, etc, etc. That is the argument we are having. I never said market size alone is the only factor like you want to act like I have, but you're just making things up in that little ball of playdoh you call a brain. Now I realize that reading it spelled out like that probably makes you want to mash your keyboard in anger, hold down that caps lock, and let me have it, but look at the facts. I
The single winningest program in the past decade is in the MWC. Period. That's a fact. I'm sure you'll try to argue against it, but that's the thing about facts, your opinion doesn't change them. I have now repeatedly pointed out half a dozen teams who were not at all what you'd consider successful who have moved up in conference, yet the winningest program in the past decade has not. Logic would dictate that while the argument could absolutely be made that success helps, saying it is just as important as all the other factors would make you look like a blithering fool.
The conferences don't care if you're good. They only care if you'll draw money. Fans care about wins. Conferences care about money. Grow up.
And if a team wins then fans will care which will draw money. Therefore, a conference cares if you are good you dolts. How many different ways do I have to illustrate to you pin heads that no one watches a bad team on TV (failure to deliver tv market) nor attends them (non profitable). I wish I were a Gator sometimes so I could be around knowledgeable hardcore fans.
Weird, it's like you're agreeing with me, and stating your earlier comment that I corrected you on was wrong, yet are too stubbornly stupid to realize it. But please, continue to think you're knowledgeable despite being so unable to read that you clearly don't even know what you're arguing anymore. It's cute, in a dog wearing a tutu sort of way.
But wait if I am agreeing with you then why do you keep leeching on my nuts. Then say I'm right and be done with it you nerd. Quit trying to fight me over nothing.
One needs to point out the success of the American this year. We have three teams in the Top 25, seven victories against the P5 which results in ranked games between conference leaders and more exposure. Also better attended games in some cases too. Last year only ECU could claim that and by this time they were upset by Temple. By the time we matched up at the end of the year we were both unranked. Now i just researched that ECU lost its ranking by this upcoming weekend, so ok the same thing can happen, but we have three or maybe four opportunities to stay relevant after Halloween weekend. That said our conference has already made inroads against P5 conferences when it comes to head to head wins. We've only lost once to the G5. With those results any losses we suffer versus each other shouldnt hurt as bad due to our overall performance this year.
Why is this important? Because it tells other conferences what you can do for them. Meeting expectations is winning your conference but losing to teams from other conferences because it taints the perception of who you're representing. You can always meet but if youre groveling to the big conferences i think they'll be expecting more especially if youre G5. If you dont think its a problem, then why does ESPN minimize MAC teams?
Do some of you really believe a Power 5 conference makes a decision on who to expand with based on 1 year of win/loss record only? Are you so simple that you think that's it? Like 10 AD's sit around a table for 5 minutes and look up the records of a few schools for the last season and make a choice?
Jesus H.....
No school. NO SCHOOL gets an invite unless there is a realistic chance they can bring in at least the amount of revenue they would share as a member of the conference at some point.
Jesus H.....
No school. NO SCHOOL gets an invite unless there is a realistic chance they can bring in at least the amount of revenue they would share as a member of the conference at some point.
Oh it's the clown who loves the smell of his own farts. What he types must be gospel. Keep hoping for a big 12 invite with UCF playing mediocre football.
A few points...
TCU & WVU got invites to the B12 because the B12 was down to 8 teams and needed content for its cable deal in order to keep the contract valid. TCU and WVU both had history, branding and success on their side. It was not just one factor or another, but a combination of factors. Had the B12 not been in dire need of teams, probably neither school is in the B12 today and are competing in the AAC.
TV market size is not as big of a factor to the B12 as some would like to believe. It is a huge factor to the B10 and SEC because they have their conference networks to sell. They can demand their channels be carried in basic packages for premium prices in large metro areas if they have a team with a large enough fan following in that area to demand the channel be carried by basic cable. The viewers in the area are more willing to pay for the channel to air in basic packages than are fans in areas not associated with the school. That means more money per subscriber for the conference.
For the B12, until the Longhorn Network goes away, bringing in schools just because they have a large market is moot, because the B12 can't take true advantage of them without a network to force sell to cable providers. That was the appeal of Rutgers and Maryland to the B10.
UCF is probably more appealing to the B10 than the B12 if market size is the sole determining factor, but it isn't.
A major factor working against UCF is TV appeal due to branding.
BYU has national appeal because their brand has been around for some time. Boise has branding, but theirs was more of an overnight success type of branding. Their upset of Oklahoma made them the talk of the nation, because they beat a blue blood school on a national stage. Prior to their win, no non-BCS school had won a BCS bowl, and there was anticipation as to when it would actually happen. The fact that they did it first was a huge boost to their attempts at building a national brand.
And do not kid yourself. Winning matters, but more than that, winning consistently matters even more. Boise has been a fixture in the top 25, even top 10, for nearly 15 years. If Boise wasn't winning big and doing it consistently, they would just be another Wyoming. Boise has also beaten schools since then on a national stage, such as VT, Oregon, and Georgia. Their consistent winning has gotten them into 4 BCS bowls, which is huge exposure, and they have won 3 of those.
Boise has also proven their success is not tied to a specific coach. They have won big with several coaches over the years. They have had a few 8-win seasons thrown in, but they always follow it up with a bounce back season the next year.
They also dared to be different and have that blue turf. You see a blue turf on TV, you know you are watching Boise. It is a signature that differentiates them from other programs.
The problem for UCF is that your BCS win came against an upstart. Yes, Baylor has been around a long time, but they have also had a reputation for being a loser for a long time. The year you beat them, the old guard fans were almost waiting to pounce on them to say, "See, we knew you were not for real." Your win actually hurt Baylor more at the time than it helped you. You are unfortunately fighting perception. The old guard doesn't want new comers rolling in and taking any of "their" money.
What made it worse for UCF is you followed up your best season ever by taking a flaming nose dive just two years later. It brings into question whether you can sustain success, or whether your historic season was a flash in the pan where you lucked out by finding a diamond in the rough like Bortles. It isn't the fan's fault, but unfortunately you get to be the ones to pay the price.
I can tell you that Memphis is not on the B12 radar. That is more of a generation by the media. The B12 is smart enough to know their success is directly tied to Fuente, who just left by the way. They have a history of losing. They had a good thing going with Tommy West, it seemed, but that was proven to be more about what DeAngelo Williams did than what West did. They have geography in their favor and a top 50 market. Their basketball team is typically pretty good. But they don't draw flys to their football games, and they are behind the NFL, NBA, Volunteers, Commodores, Nashville, Graceland and the Smoky Mountains as far as public interest in their own state.
Cincinnati is probably closer to an invite than Memphis because they are competitive consistently in both sports, they are in a fertile recruiting area, they have geography on their side and they have a large tv market, but we have established already market will not be the deciding factor. Still, if the B12 wanted Cincy, they would already have them.
Houston is never going to be in the B12 unless all 4 other Texas schools leave the conference first. End of story.
The preference for the B12 is not to expand, unless schools like Notre Dame, Florida State and Clemson become available, which is not likely at all.
If I had to place bets on who the B12 might expand with (assuming the B12 HAS to expand) I would say the top 2 candidates are BYU and Boise, in that order.
The second option out there that has a small rumor following is BYU, Army, Navy, and Air Force to get to 14. All 4 have national following and branding. The B12 doesn't need any other power schools. 6 different B12 schools were ranked at one point or another this year, and that does not include Texas who will eventually get back to winning. Adding those 4 schools get the conference to 14, on par with the SEC, ACC, and B12. All 4 have history and tradition. All 4 are TV friendly. They give WVU some close neighbors within the conference in Army and Navy. Air Force puts the B12 back in Colorado, and BYU is self explanatory. Plus, Annapolis and West Point are historic college football venues.
As far as measurables go, UCF has what it takes. You have the size. You have the market. You have the recruiting grounds. You have a solid and growing fan base. The only thing holding you back is winning against some big name programs on a national stage, which has to do with proper scheduling, and most importantly, winning consistently over a several year period of time. Boise State only started playing football in 1968. If they can do it with all the disadvantages they have, then you can do it, and probably do it better.
Either way, good luck.
TCU & WVU got invites to the B12 because the B12 was down to 8 teams and needed content for its cable deal in order to keep the contract valid. TCU and WVU both had history, branding and success on their side. It was not just one factor or another, but a combination of factors. Had the B12 not been in dire need of teams, probably neither school is in the B12 today and are competing in the AAC.
TV market size is not as big of a factor to the B12 as some would like to believe. It is a huge factor to the B10 and SEC because they have their conference networks to sell. They can demand their channels be carried in basic packages for premium prices in large metro areas if they have a team with a large enough fan following in that area to demand the channel be carried by basic cable. The viewers in the area are more willing to pay for the channel to air in basic packages than are fans in areas not associated with the school. That means more money per subscriber for the conference.
For the B12, until the Longhorn Network goes away, bringing in schools just because they have a large market is moot, because the B12 can't take true advantage of them without a network to force sell to cable providers. That was the appeal of Rutgers and Maryland to the B10.
UCF is probably more appealing to the B10 than the B12 if market size is the sole determining factor, but it isn't.
A major factor working against UCF is TV appeal due to branding.
BYU has national appeal because their brand has been around for some time. Boise has branding, but theirs was more of an overnight success type of branding. Their upset of Oklahoma made them the talk of the nation, because they beat a blue blood school on a national stage. Prior to their win, no non-BCS school had won a BCS bowl, and there was anticipation as to when it would actually happen. The fact that they did it first was a huge boost to their attempts at building a national brand.
And do not kid yourself. Winning matters, but more than that, winning consistently matters even more. Boise has been a fixture in the top 25, even top 10, for nearly 15 years. If Boise wasn't winning big and doing it consistently, they would just be another Wyoming. Boise has also beaten schools since then on a national stage, such as VT, Oregon, and Georgia. Their consistent winning has gotten them into 4 BCS bowls, which is huge exposure, and they have won 3 of those.
Boise has also proven their success is not tied to a specific coach. They have won big with several coaches over the years. They have had a few 8-win seasons thrown in, but they always follow it up with a bounce back season the next year.
They also dared to be different and have that blue turf. You see a blue turf on TV, you know you are watching Boise. It is a signature that differentiates them from other programs.
The problem for UCF is that your BCS win came against an upstart. Yes, Baylor has been around a long time, but they have also had a reputation for being a loser for a long time. The year you beat them, the old guard fans were almost waiting to pounce on them to say, "See, we knew you were not for real." Your win actually hurt Baylor more at the time than it helped you. You are unfortunately fighting perception. The old guard doesn't want new comers rolling in and taking any of "their" money.
What made it worse for UCF is you followed up your best season ever by taking a flaming nose dive just two years later. It brings into question whether you can sustain success, or whether your historic season was a flash in the pan where you lucked out by finding a diamond in the rough like Bortles. It isn't the fan's fault, but unfortunately you get to be the ones to pay the price.
I can tell you that Memphis is not on the B12 radar. That is more of a generation by the media. The B12 is smart enough to know their success is directly tied to Fuente, who just left by the way. They have a history of losing. They had a good thing going with Tommy West, it seemed, but that was proven to be more about what DeAngelo Williams did than what West did. They have geography in their favor and a top 50 market. Their basketball team is typically pretty good. But they don't draw flys to their football games, and they are behind the NFL, NBA, Volunteers, Commodores, Nashville, Graceland and the Smoky Mountains as far as public interest in their own state.
Cincinnati is probably closer to an invite than Memphis because they are competitive consistently in both sports, they are in a fertile recruiting area, they have geography on their side and they have a large tv market, but we have established already market will not be the deciding factor. Still, if the B12 wanted Cincy, they would already have them.
Houston is never going to be in the B12 unless all 4 other Texas schools leave the conference first. End of story.
The preference for the B12 is not to expand, unless schools like Notre Dame, Florida State and Clemson become available, which is not likely at all.
If I had to place bets on who the B12 might expand with (assuming the B12 HAS to expand) I would say the top 2 candidates are BYU and Boise, in that order.
The second option out there that has a small rumor following is BYU, Army, Navy, and Air Force to get to 14. All 4 have national following and branding. The B12 doesn't need any other power schools. 6 different B12 schools were ranked at one point or another this year, and that does not include Texas who will eventually get back to winning. Adding those 4 schools get the conference to 14, on par with the SEC, ACC, and B12. All 4 have history and tradition. All 4 are TV friendly. They give WVU some close neighbors within the conference in Army and Navy. Air Force puts the B12 back in Colorado, and BYU is self explanatory. Plus, Annapolis and West Point are historic college football venues.
As far as measurables go, UCF has what it takes. You have the size. You have the market. You have the recruiting grounds. You have a solid and growing fan base. The only thing holding you back is winning against some big name programs on a national stage, which has to do with proper scheduling, and most importantly, winning consistently over a several year period of time. Boise State only started playing football in 1968. If they can do it with all the disadvantages they have, then you can do it, and probably do it better.
Either way, good luck.
How exactly is Boise going to create more revenue for the B12?
And I can't see Army and Navy taking direction from Texas as the dictator of the conference.
I agree but I think Cincy and Memphis will be their top targets if they can sustain success the next few seasons. No one is leaving the Acc
The thing with Texas is that once Deloss Dodds left, it opened the door not only for Texas to look at things differently, but it also made Texas more approachable to other schools in the league that had been put off by Texas.
The biggest thing going for the B12 is that Texas actually wants it to succeed.
You have new people in the mix now that realize it is in Texas' best interest to help the B12 survive.
The notion that Texas is the sole decision maker of the league has never been true. What they have been is hard to deal with. Oklahoma does not take marching orders from Texas, I can promise you that.
As far as Boise making the conference money, it would come by way of adding content. That is 9 more TV friendly games for the league. It also opens up the door to getting a championship game. It would help the same way UCF would.
I will say this: Boise is about at its peak. Sure, they could win a national title one day if they were to join the B12, but that is more about having the opportunity than having the ability.
For UCF in comparison, your basement is Boise's ceiling. You have everything going for you that Boise does not. You don't need my advice, obviously, but I would throw money at Mark Richt for head coach. He is a consistent winner, and that is what you need.
I agree, no one is leaving the ACC, at least until the B10 raids them for UVA and UNC. After that, all bets are off.
Should the Big 12 decide to expand in the future I don't think they are going to look at the results of one season and base it on that. 0-12 is bad, but 12-1 and a Fiesta Bowl championship over the Big 12 champion is good, I think they kind of balance out, call it a wash. As great as Florida is as a program, they have had a few bad years recently (No I'm not comparing us to them, just saying anybody can have a bad year).
If and when the Big 12 decides to expand, on field performance will matter to some degree. But so will TV markets outside of the current Big 12 footprint, geographic proximity (not really in our favor), recruiting grounds, and being in an eastern market (Big 12 commish said if they expand, it will be to the east). Those are just a few of the factors.
I still think Cincy is a lock- solid all around sports, good TV market, proximity to WV, good recruiting grounds.
But what other eastern schools would you say are in the mix
Memphis- lets see what they do without Fuente and Paxton Lynch- not very fertile recruiting grounds, traditional basketball power (maybe not with Posner)
USF- good season for the Bulls, tip my hat to them and Taggert
UCF- same as we ever were, just had one really bad season. I can't see us being a 3 win or less doormat for long. Too much talent in this state for a team to stay down very long.
Temple- kind of a long shot but you never know.
I have read several articles suggesting the Big 12 is actually considering a 4 team expansion (some schools want no expansion, some want 2 and a couple are very open to the idea of 4.
In a perfect world it would Cincy and BYU. Cincy for a bridge for WVU and BYU because they are deserving. However, the commish of the Big 12 did say that if they do expand it will be to the east. So that kind of shoots a hole in the BYU and Boise argument.
If and when the Big 12 decides to expand, on field performance will matter to some degree. But so will TV markets outside of the current Big 12 footprint, geographic proximity (not really in our favor), recruiting grounds, and being in an eastern market (Big 12 commish said if they expand, it will be to the east). Those are just a few of the factors.
I still think Cincy is a lock- solid all around sports, good TV market, proximity to WV, good recruiting grounds.
But what other eastern schools would you say are in the mix
Memphis- lets see what they do without Fuente and Paxton Lynch- not very fertile recruiting grounds, traditional basketball power (maybe not with Posner)
USF- good season for the Bulls, tip my hat to them and Taggert
UCF- same as we ever were, just had one really bad season. I can't see us being a 3 win or less doormat for long. Too much talent in this state for a team to stay down very long.
Temple- kind of a long shot but you never know.
I have read several articles suggesting the Big 12 is actually considering a 4 team expansion (some schools want no expansion, some want 2 and a couple are very open to the idea of 4.
In a perfect world it would Cincy and BYU. Cincy for a bridge for WVU and BYU because they are deserving. However, the commish of the Big 12 did say that if they do expand it will be to the east. So that kind of shoots a hole in the BYU and Boise argument.
Hey it was fun while it lasted right? So I guess you're back to rooting for basketball right?
