Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest Dr. Dre

The New Division 1-A

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Wyobraska said:

Nebraska liked the unequal revenue sharing in the Big 12 when they were good and getting money, then when things went South they started to complain.  They were a part of the Big 12 disfunction too.  

Some Husker fans complained yes but UNL was always very supportive of the revenue sharing bylaw that was put in place during the creation of the conference which stipulated that about 60% of the conference football and basketball media revenue was shared equally and those that received a greater share were granted based on performance and scheduling.  The scenario put forth that I was responding to was OU taking double of everyone else besides UT regardless of performance.  I was also referring to the creation of the Longhorn Network which is largely responsible for the lack of a Big XII Network never coming to fruition.  Many current and former Big XII members resented UT for this move and feel it held/holds back their earning/recruiting potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, k5james said:

I could see at some point the PAC going to 16 with the P8 in one division and the newbies in the other.

That is why I would rather add SDSU to that division with the newbies along with UNLV to guarantee a game in California every year.  Access to California will be the major sticking point if the PAC expands.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NorthWestCowboy said:

 

OU is a blue blood program and in the current media environment future revenue is uncertain.  For these reasons OU can join ANY conference they wish.  AAU status be damned!  The B1G will take OU if for no other reason than to keep the SEC from adding them.  C'mon folks college football is an arms race and if you get a shot to add a major program like OU you don't hesitate.

We both know that OU is real fond of the old Big 8.  Being in a division with KU, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc would rekindle that.  As long as OU has access to the Dallas Metroplex, they will be fine even if the Red River Rivalry comes to an end.  Texas A&M is doing great without those Longhorns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jalapeno said:

Well, CO & Utah are exploding in population and are at least 8 million residents with 10 million not far off.  That CU & Utah pair has more people than every other Pac-12 rivalry pair save for the LA schools.

Both Bay Area and Washington State are just over 7 million.

Nice try.

 

The logic here eludes me.  You're giving the entire State population of Utah and  Colorado as a combined number here, yet limiting the Stanford-Cal number to only the Bay Area proper?  As fickle as Bay Area college fans often are, seems to me you should at least consider all of NorCal here, which is over 15 million.  It's semantics, I know, as it's a big state and really diverse, etc.

In fact, if you ask a Giants or Dodgers fan, some of them are so parochial that they don't even consider San Diego "SoCal", instead preferring to label L.A. as solely constituting that moniker. It's whack, I know.  

Anyway, just looking for some consistency in your numbers comparo here...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, k5james said:

You should probably just stop speaking now.

Right. We don't want to inject facts into this conversation. It's all about fantasy and absurd speculation. 

 

"Don't underestimate Joe Biden's ability to F@*k things up."

Barack Obama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, sjsbuff said:

 

The logic here eludes me.  You're giving the entire State population of Utah and  Colorado as a combined number here, yet limiting the Stanford-Cal number to only the Bay Area proper?  As fickle as Bay Area college fans often are, seems to me you should at least consider all of NorCal here, which is over 15 million.  It's semantics, I know, as it's a big state and really diverse, etc.

In fact, if you ask a Giants or Dodgers fan, some of them are so parochial that they don't even consider San Diego "SoCal", instead preferring to label L.A. as solely constituting that moniker. It's whack, I know.  

Anyway, just looking for some consistency in your numbers comparo here...

 

It was done to point out how big the market is in the newest Pac territories.  Even if you just included metro Denver & Salt Lake City, it's still larger than Seattle & Portland and about the same as Phoenix if not more than Phoenix itself.  With the growth of those two metro areas, it's possible they give the Bay Area a run for its money down the road.

if you combined CO & Utah's population and compared it with the largest metro areas, that combination would even put it ahead of the Dallas Metroplex close to Houston for #4 and even more people than New York City alone.  Within 10 years, it's possible those two states pass Chicago's metro population which means only NYC and LA's metros have more than both CO & Utah.  It's growing too fast here!

The Front Range has about five million people from Pueblo to Cheyenne while Utah's Wastach Front has two million people.

CU & Utah's future is rock solid and no one can dispute those facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Aslowhiteguy said:

Right. We don't want to inject facts into this conversation. It's all about fantasy and absurd speculation. 

 

Did you bite your tongue when you typed that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jalapeno said:

Guess CU's sciences program with the NOAA doesn't mean anything either...which probably means you are wrong about OU's ability to ascend to AAU status.

And if money was a factor, Oregon wouldn't be an AAU member either and they get less funding than OU.

Look at the Carneige Research Rankings and see how many P5 programs have the highest research ratings.

The difference is that Colorado has pretty strong metrics across the board and multiple national and world class departments.  They don't need to rely on NOAA affiliated programs as their calling card.  OU has nowhere near that broad a base of quality.

Money does matter.  Endowments fund endowed chairs for National Academy members, fellowships for doctoral students, cutting edge research labs, scholarships for kids with 1400 SATs.  Money buys quality.  As for Oregon, they should't be in the AAU.  Along with Mizzou and Brandeis, they should be on the chopping block if the AAU decides to cull the herd in the future.

As for the Carnegie classifications, they are ridiculously overly broad to the point of being useless as evidenced by the fact that they see no distinction between Berkeley and Arizona State or Texas and North Texas or Chicago and Cincinnati.  Meaningless.

SteelCityBlue

November 24th, 2018 at 9:10 PM ^

I'm looking forward to a new head coach who isn't a cud-chewing autistic retard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Jalapeno said:

It was done to point out how big the market is in the newest Pac territories.  Even if you just included metro Denver & Salt Lake City, it's still larger than Seattle & Portland and about the same as Phoenix if not more than Phoenix itself.  With the growth of those two metro areas, it's possible they give the Bay Area a run for its money down the road.

if you combined CO & Utah's population and compared it with the largest metro areas, that combination would even put it ahead of the Dallas Metroplex close to Houston for #4 and even more people than New York City alone.  Within 10 years, it's possible those two states pass Chicago's metro population which means only NYC and LA's metros have more than both CO & Utah.  It's growing too fast here!

The Front Range has about five million people from Pueblo to Cheyenne while Utah's Wastach Front has two million people.

CU & Utah's future is rock solid and no one can dispute those facts.

I'm won't disagree with you that UU and CU are solid within the PAC but why on earth would you compare metro populations vs city proper populations or Metro vs state populations in trying to prove your point?  Does fan loyalty somehow stop at city/metro limits in all markets except Denver and SLC?  If you've ever been to Seattle and Portland their metros are significantly bigger than those of Denver and SLC.  When combined by more than 2 million people to be exact.  Oh and as far as growth goes Seattle and Portland metros as well as other PAC metros are keeping pace just fine with Denver and SLC.  If you really want to get into it both Seattle and Portland metros only compete among 2 FBS programs each while the SLC metro has 3 and Denver metro has 3 plus a 4th in WY since you added Cheyenne to your front range population figure.  Don't forget as it is often pointed out on this board that CSU does in fact own the Denver market :P

6,223,857 (2016 estimated combined Seattle and Portland metro's)

4,039,264 (2016 estimated combined Denver and Salt Lake City metro's)

Metro growth since 2010 census:  Denver +12.17%, Salt Lake +9.04%, Seattle metro + 10.44%, Portland metro + 8.94%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, happycamper said:

Ehh.... there's also the fact that taking TCU and Utah broke the back of the MWC. With them we have several top 10 finishers and possibly a team in the CFP one year; we'd be compared with the Big 12 (maybe unfairly to the Big 12). Taking them shut the door on that for at least a generation and probably forever. Furthermore looking at Utah's demographics, the market is a growth asset. 

If another "TCU" or "Utah" shows up they will be gone unless they are BSU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Victor Maitlin said:

The difference is that Colorado has pretty strong metrics across the board and multiple national and world class departments.  They don't need to rely on NOAA affiliated programs as their calling card.  OU has nowhere near that broad a base of quality.

Money does matter.  Endowments fund endowed chairs for National Academy members, fellowships for doctoral students, cutting edge research labs, scholarships for kids with 1400 SATs.  Money buys quality.  As for Oregon, they should't be in the AAU.  Along with Mizzou and Brandeis, they should be on the chopping block if the AAU decides to cull the herd in the future.

As for the Carnegie classifications, they are ridiculously overly broad to the point of being useless as evidenced by the fact that they see no distinction between Berkeley and Arizona State or Texas and North Texas or Chicago and Cincinnati.  Meaningless.

You said ASU...their undergrad program might be a joke but their grad programs are the reason why they are in the PAC and BYU is not despite having a better undergraduate program.

Just look at how many P5 programs are not Very High Research Universities rated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jalapeno said:

You said ASU...their undergrad program might be a joke but their grad programs are the reason why they are in the PAC and BYU is not despite having a better undergraduate program.

Just look at how many P5 programs are not Very High Research Universities rated.

Me thinks BYU is not in for other reasons

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jalapeno said:

You said ASU...their undergrad program might be a joke but their grad programs are the reason why they are in the PAC and BYU is not despite having a better undergraduate program.

Just look at how many P5 programs are not Very High Research Universities rated.

I looked up ASU's doctoral rankings on the last National Research Council survey.  They're better than I thought, but we're not talking the level of a UC or Big Ten campus.

I counted 7 (out of 65) P5 programs that don't have Very High Research.  A couple of them are small undergrad focused privates (TCU and Wake Forest). Four are SEC/B12 legacy schools (Auburn, Baylor, Alabama, Mississippi State).  Rutgers is a real head-scratcher considering that they're in the AAU.  Anyways, my point remains that the Carnegie Classifications are so broadly drawn that they really don't tell anything.  As for Oklahoma, it's not a bad school, but it is nowhere close to getting even a sniff at AAU membership and would easily be the worst school in the Big Ten.  I'm not really taking a position on whether that would keep them out or not.  I'm just saying that, if the B1G considers academics, then that's going to be a heavy negative on OU's balance sheet.

SteelCityBlue

November 24th, 2018 at 9:10 PM ^

I'm looking forward to a new head coach who isn't a cud-chewing autistic retard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, NorthWestCowboy said:

I despise the thought of KU in the B1G.  I've just never been a fan going back to the Big 8 days and was happy to be rid of them.  I would hope that the B1G wouldn't take on KU without UT or OU coming to.  While I'm obviously no fan of OU I think they are a much better conference mate than UT and would not give an ultimatum like what you described to stay in the Big XII.  OU is just going to leave if they decide its better for them.  Truth be told the kind of approach where one school soaks up a disproportionate amount of conference revenue ultimately works against you as other schools competitiveness could suffer and therefore OU would as well in the long run.  Something TX would do ala the Longhorn network and look what it set in motion.

Despise is a strong word.B)

Three things are favorable to KU admission to the B1G: AAU status, proximity to Kansas City where the B1G has no particular following and elite status in a sport the B1G cares a lot about, basketball.

As if enhancing its academic status isn't enough, KU would figure to want to get out of the B12 for monetary reasons. You haven't done it but comparisons of the current TV revenue of the B12 versus B1G are illusory. The same rumors of A&M's displeasure with UT's dominance of the B12 prior to its bolting for the SEC exist now with regard to OU so it's probable that once the GOR requirement expires, OU will leave and even if it's just the Sooners who bail, the B12 TV $$ will take a hit and that should impact KU's decision making process.

Nobody outside their own locales care a whit about Baylor, Kansas State, Texas Tech, Iowa State and Oklahoma State and the cities they're in are all small to tiny. Therefore if/when OU leaves, 55% of what remains of the B12 will be schools which ride in the cart rather than help pull it. To paraphrase ISU's AD, even assuming UT stays, the B12 will then become a rich man's Mountain West. So although I agree that REAL power conferences don't allow a school to get a disproportionate amount of TV revenue, I can see that happening. For example, I can see the B12 leftovers offering to backfill with some current MWC and AAC schools but with the caveat that at least during their first decade or so of membership, they will receive only something like a 50% cut of a full TV share.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...