NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Sat Nov 22, 2014 7:55 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:46 am 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:25 pm
Posts: 15
ECU and Southern Miss, in my opinion, are great fits for the Big East and would add football pedigree to the league immediately. ECU in ACC territory and Southern Miss in SEC territory could really improve their stature in recruiting with the BE label. USM basketball has been "good" over the last few years and looks like an NCAA invite is in store this year. Both ECU and USM are very, very good baseball programs and would move BE baseball into national prominence.

BUT, let's be clear, the real reason these two very good programs are not getting the Big East invite is LOCATION. Neither school has a large TV market. ECU's at #99 for Greenville/Washington is better than USM's,combining Hattiesburg and Biloxi/Gulfport would put USM at around #122 but neither are close to the top 50 which is what conferences are looking for now. ECU has done a great job packing it's football stadium over the last 7-8 years, but that doesn't translate to TV share. Someone mentioned South Florida got the nod because BE teams could travel to Florida each year for a game, but that's BS. USF got into the BE because of their tremendous TV market. Orlando is #19! At the time of their entrance, their programs were crap. Both ECU and Southern Miss' programs were much better.

It's funny how so many BCS schools ARE NOT in big TV DMA's, but you never hear about that. These schools add a ton to there conferences in some cases. A few examples are:

Oregon
Oregon St.
Washington State
Auburn
Miss. State
Ole Miss
Seton Hall
Providence College
Purdue
Michigan St.

I didn't include schools like Notre Dame, Michigan, Iowa, Indiana, Alabama, North Carolina etc... which are in smaller towns, but are Flagship schools in large states. But my point is conferences don't have to be FILLED with teams that are only in Top 50 TV DMA's. Diversity in the programs is often good for the league's.


I think ECU should be in the new BE, but I'm not making the call's for the BE.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 4:14 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:57 pm
Posts: 78
storm wrote:
ECU and Southern Miss, in my opinion, are great fits for the Big East and would add football pedigree to the league immediately. ECU in ACC territory and Southern Miss in SEC territory could really improve their stature in recruiting with the BE label. USM basketball has been "good" over the last few years and looks like an NCAA invite is in store this year. Both ECU and USM are very, very good baseball programs and would move BE baseball into national prominence.

BUT, let's be clear, the real reason these two very good programs are not getting the Big East invite is LOCATION. Neither school has a large TV market. ECU's at #99 for Greenville/Washington is better than USM's,combining Hattiesburg and Biloxi/Gulfport would put USM at around #122 but neither are close to the top 50 which is what conferences are looking for now. ECU has done a great job packing it's football stadium over the last 7-8 years, but that doesn't translate to TV share. Someone mentioned South Florida got the nod because BE teams could travel to Florida each year for a game, but that's BS. USF got into the BE because of their tremendous TV market. Orlando is #19! At the time of their entrance, their programs were crap. Both ECU and Southern Miss' programs were much better.

It's funny how so many BCS schools ARE NOT in big TV DMA's, but you never hear about that. These schools add a ton to there conferences in some cases. A few examples are:

Oregon
Oregon St.
Washington State
Auburn
Miss. State
Ole Miss
Seton Hall
Providence College
Purdue
Michigan St.

I didn't include schools like Notre Dame, Michigan, Iowa, Indiana, Alabama, North Carolina etc... which are in smaller towns, but are Flagship schools in large states. But my point is conferences don't have to be FILLED with teams that are only in Top 50 TV DMA's. Diversity in the programs is often good for the league's.


I think ECU should be in the new BE, but I'm not making the call's for the BE.


I agree generally with what you are saying, but both Ole Miss and Miss. St. are flagships, and at least one of them should be in our "lower group." Also, you must have never been to Michigan, because anything north of Shiawassee County is Michigan State country (sans UM regional campus areas like Flint); I would almost go as far to say Michigan State has just as strong or maybe a strong share of "statewide support" than Michigan does.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:08 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
A. Myatt's article on the unofficial, ECU focused, Bonesville.net blog, provides remarks related to this subject:
http://bonesville.net/Articles/AlMyatt/ ... _Myatt.htm

Included was a comment per NCSU as it may relate to SEC expansion; implying ECU future options may exist as expansions continue, and suppose, twist and turn.

It's unclear if ECU shall get a future BE invite; what is evident, otherwise, they may need to make the most of the CUSA-MWC consolidation for now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 7:06 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:20 pm
Posts: 24
You have to take a look at their #1 market.

Oregon & Oregon St. - Technically in the Eugene, OR, however the main market for both of these teams is Portland, OR. Portland is the #22 market, according to Nielsen.

Washington St. - Significant enroads into the Seattle (#12) market, which with Washington, they have locked up.

Michigan St. - Flagship University in populus state. Next to #11 Detroit market, and #41 Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo-Battlecreek

Seton Hall - #1 New York DMA

Providence - #53 Providence Market DMA

Purdue - #26 Indianaopolis DMA

These are just a few of them. ECU is the #5 school in the state. All of the ones you listed are no further down than #3 in their states.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:16 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 6:04 pm
Posts: 29
I'm a bit late to this topic, but here's what I see regarding the OP.

As we all know, the Big East is a hybrid. We can argue whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's safe to assume that's not going to change anytime soon.

If you're a Catholic Big East school, you don't care about who the Big East adds as football-only members. This makes sense since football-only schools don't really impact them. Hence, the additions of Boise State and San Diego State didn't faze them.

However, the Catholic Big East schools very much care about any all-sports members. Those Catholic schools also know enough that anything less than adding Penn State and Notre Dame wouldn't ever keep Louisville, UConn and/or Rutgers from bolting at the first opportunity for one of the other five power conferences. So, the irony is that they have MUCH more of an interest in vetting the all-sports members than the Louisvilles of the world. Providence and DePaul are more likely to be stuck with Houston and UCF than Louisville will be in the long-term.

As a result, ALL of the new all-sports Big East members are public school versions of the Catholic members: big institutions in large urban markets. They may not have much else in common, but at least they have that demographic bond. At the same time, those new all-sports members at least bring *something* to table for those Catholic members. SMU might be horrific in basketball, but at worst, the Catholic members can get new recruiting ties to the Dallas-Fort Worth market.

This is where we get to ECU's bind. ECU's argument for being added to the Big East is that it's a decent football school in relatively close geographic proximity to the rest current core of the conference. However, geographic proximity only really matters for all-sports members, and as an all-sports member, ECU doesn't really provide any value to the Catholic members that need to approve them. ECU is terrible in basketball and doesn't provide any type of TV or recruiting market to make up for it.

That means ECU would be better suited for being a football-only member from a pure athletic perspective, but that completely takes away the geographic proximity factor. For football-only members, geographic proximity is not only irrelevant now for the Big East, but they'd actually rather get a new western member far away from the current conference core, instead. So, ECU wouldn't even get consideration as a football-only membership.

In summary, ECU doesn't bring enough value to the Catholic members to justify an all-sports membership that takes advantage of their geographic proximity, and they're not good enough in football to justify a football-only membership since the football members can freely disregard geographic proximity. The only way that ECU gets into the Big East is if they have Boise State-level success (AKA actually going to and winning BCS bowls). Being "merely good" in football won't be good enough for ECU to garner an invite.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 7:15 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Tue May 06, 2003 5:30 pm
Posts: 178
Location: Greensboro, NC
Excellent, concise analysis. I wish it weren't so as I would like to see ECU in the Big East... for football, if not all sports... but it is what it is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 8:05 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1150
The problem with the television market defense against ECU and USM is that were markets *that* important, programs like Nebraska, West Virginia, and TCU would not be major players when they sit in rural areas, or already reside within the geographic footprint (sort of in the same way why Notre Dame is such a prize for the B1G, they're geographically redundant). It's not *just* about markets. It may have nothing at all to do about markets. It's program strength and recognition.

ECU proved throughout the 90's they belonged in the Big East. They played BE-lite schedules, winning the healthiest percentage of games against current and former BE programs than even UL, USF, UC, and what never was, TCU. ECU even hung one on one of the better 90's Miami teams.

I think ECU had its basketball critics, and rightfully so. I don't think Virginia Tech and West Virginia were too supportive, either. But these days, when ECU and USM find themselves out of a major conference where movement all hinges on football programs, to watch as two media-fabricated FL programs hop over them (USF and UCF) and the embarrassingly bad SMU, Memphis, and Temple programs find their way in (for all sports!!!), all of which can't even compete with ECU's and USM's strong attendance marks, let alone performance marks over the last 2-3 decades, this isn't about programs or markets. This is political and this is snobbery.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 8:45 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3813
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
The problem with the television market defense against ECU and USM is that were markets *that* important, programs like Nebraska, West Virginia, and TCU would not be major players when they sit in rural areas, or already reside within the geographic footprint (sort of in the same way why Notre Dame is such a prize for the B1G, they're geographically redundant). It's not *just* about markets. It may have nothing at all to do about markets. It's program strength and recognition.

ECU proved throughout the 90's they belonged in the Big East. They played BE-lite schedules, winning the healthiest percentage of games against current and former BE programs than even UL, USF, UC, and what never was, TCU. ECU even hung one on one of the better 90's Miami teams.

I think ECU had its basketball critics, and rightfully so. I don't think Virginia Tech and West Virginia were too supportive, either. But these days, when ECU and USM find themselves out of a major conference where movement all hinges on football programs, to watch as two media-fabricated FL programs hop over them (USF and UCF) and the embarrassingly bad SMU, Memphis, and Temple programs find their way in (for all sports!!!), all of which can't even compete with ECU's and USM's strong attendance marks, let alone performance marks over the last 2-3 decades, this isn't about programs or markets. This is political and this is snobbery.

Bishin, welcome to the forums by the way.

Just a reminder, whenever you see the word "market" used by any of the long time posters, it's almost always in reference to "market penetration". For instance, Alabama, Nebraska, etc, are located in small markets. But they have a deep penetration into the entire state and nationally. ECU is 5th dog in NCs cities. USM is an afterthought as well.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?1tymo5

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 8:45 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1150
Hey Quinn...loud and clear about the market penetration thing, but I think my point still stands. If one is to understand the TCU-B12 move, it makes sense ONLY on the merits of TCU's football program's success at both the performance and recruiting level, and prior history in the SWC. TCU's "market," the Ft. Worth side of the DFW DMA is solid B12 space (with some SEC permeation), it's a small, private school, and it doesn't add much to new revenue. They also can't fill their stadium. Nebraska gives the B1G insignificant NE markets and *maybe* gets into KC (it did when it played KU and MU), but what it also only *slightly* solidified markets like Chicago, St. Louis, Milwaukee, twin cities, etc...and as a program, it tends to recruit regionally (now cut off from the TX pipeline without OK), although nationally renowned because of their historical success. And, again, UNL has a DEEP history with the Big Ten.

For ECU, the justification of any snub tends to run hypocritical to other arguments for other school inclusion or completely denies ECU's football prominence. ECU is NC's third largest school, easily NC's second or third-best football program, puts up very unique attendance gates despite playing often sub-par competition in C-USA, and, for the Big East, would put the conference in solid footing in both eastern NC and southeastern VA. There's history with the Big East, too...playing as an independent in the 90's, ECU often scheduled 3-5 Big East schools every season. They traveled well. They did everything a program should have done at that time to prove their worth.

When you take all of that above, and apply it to USF, UCF, SMU...WTF? To me, I've been miffed and turned off toward supporting the Big East because of just how hard on UCF and USF the conference was despite there being NO HISTORY OF SUCCESS at these programs, virtually infantile at the Division I level, and already hounded by infractions that tell a story of questionable means in the pursuit of a very fabricated "legacy."

For USM, who I feel even worse for, how many consecutive winning seasons do you have to produce to show that you're a program who can (and does) compete at the national level? Why does Temple need to only produce 2-3 consecutive winning seasons to merit better conference standing, but not USM's 18+? It's just plain biased, and spin is nauseating.

I know it's a rant, and I apologize for being the new guy for coming on here with a soapbox already underfoot, but I truly believe college athletics on the whole only gets worse the more this stuff happens, and far less enjoyable.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:46 am 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3813
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
Hey Quinn...loud and clear about the market penetration thing, but I think my point still stands. If one is to understand the TCU-B12 move, it makes sense ONLY on the merits of TCU's football program's success at both the performance and recruiting level, and prior history in the SWC. TCU's "market," the Ft. Worth side of the DFW DMA is solid B12 space (with some SEC permeation), it's a small, private school, and it doesn't add much to new revenue. They also can't fill their stadium. Nebraska gives the B1G insignificant NE markets and *maybe* gets into KC (it did when it played KU and MU), but what it also only *slightly* solidified markets like Chicago, St. Louis, Milwaukee, twin cities, etc...and as a program, it tends to recruit regionally (now cut off from the TX pipeline without OK), although nationally renowned because of their historical success. And, again, UNL has a DEEP history with the Big Ten.

For ECU, the justification of any snub tends to run hypocritical to other arguments for other school inclusion or completely denies ECU's football prominence. ECU is NC's third largest school, easily NC's second or third-best football program, puts up very unique attendance gates despite playing often sub-par competition in C-USA, and, for the Big East, would put the conference in solid footing in both eastern NC and southeastern VA. There's history with the Big East, too...playing as an independent in the 90's, ECU often scheduled 3-5 Big East schools every season. They traveled well. They did everything a program should have done at that time to prove their worth.

When you take all of that above, and apply it to USF, UCF, SMU...WTF? To me, I've been miffed and turned off toward supporting the Big East because of just how hard on UCF and USF the conference was despite there being NO HISTORY OF SUCCESS at these programs, virtually infantile at the Division I level, and already hounded by infractions that tell a story of questionable means in the pursuit of a very fabricated "legacy."

For USM, who I feel even worse for, how many consecutive winning seasons do you have to produce to show that you're a program who can (and does) compete at the national level? Why does Temple need to only produce 2-3 consecutive winning seasons to merit better conference standing, but not USM's 18+? It's just plain biased, and spin is nauseating.

I know it's a rant, and I apologize for being the new guy for coming on here with a soapbox already underfoot, but I truly believe college athletics on the whole only gets worse the more this stuff happens, and far less enjoyable.



TCU expanded into a national program due to their years of success. It's the same success that drove them from CUSA to MWC to Big East (in title only) and then to the Big 12. They DO also bring MARKET POTENTIAL for Dallas/FtW, to supplement the existing bases by Texas and Texas Tech as well as so many alumni of Big 12 schools. TCU brings a successful program to the Big 12 to replace Texas A&M, but they also bring a market to the Big 12 that they have not had that happens to be the (if not a top 3) market for Big 12 alumni. If thousands of extra tickets are sold to the TCU home games, and they are sold to fans of the opponents, so be it...it's something that improves the Big 12 experience.


The trend now, at the end of the dominoes falling, is for the lesser conferences to bank solely on market potential. SDSU wasn't brought into the Big East for their football prowess. SJSU isn't on the MWC radar, likely to be added by July, due to their success or market penetration. But at the end of the chain, it's about salvaging some extra money loss by losing your top programs. ECU and USM do nothing to improve the Big East football profile, nor their revenue profile. If they did at all, you wouldn't have seen 8, yes, 8 schools brought into the Big East just this round, not to mention Uconn, UL, Cincy, USF, brought in previously. That's a total of 12 football schools brought in while ECU and USM were given no or little consideration. If they were close to proving any value to the Big East, there wouldn't have been 12 football schools selected above them. 3 or 4, sure. But 12...

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:34 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:22 pm
Posts: 5
So ECU is the #5 school in the state because the rest of the teams are in the ACC? Duke has no pull in football as most of their alumni are out of state and people really only care about Duke because of basketball. When coach K retires lets see how good Duke is and if they can continue their success. To say Duke and Wake Forest has a bigger pull in the state because they are in the ACC is ludacris. If some magical way ECU is invited to the SEC tomorrow do they automatically become the #1 team in the state? Its crazy to use the 4 ACC teams in the state when Houston and SMU are being added to a state that has A&M, Texas, TTU, Baylor and UCF is being added to a state that has Florida, Florida State, USF, and Miami(Yes I know orlando and houston are considered bigger markets)

When looking at fan bases and their impact (travel to bowl games, home attendance, merchandise sales) its easy to see that the pull/draw looks something like this.

1. UNC
2. NC State
3. ECU
4. App/Wake/Duke

ECU is not a national brand but in no doubt in my mind is ECU a regional brand because it brings a good chunk of NC, parts of SC, and parts of VA. Are they the number 1 draw in Raleigh? No. But they definitely should get credit for partially bringing raleigh as well as charlotte. Again I am not saying ECU delivers the whole market of these two cities but the TV ratings do not lie when the pirates are on TV(I believe ECUs bowl game against Arkansas had a stat on a great viewing audience) and when ECU plays NC State or UNC there is more buzz throughout the state compared to when these schools play Wake and Duke.


The real question I want to ask you Quinn is lets say the big east makes the mistake in your mind and adds ECU. Does ECU all of a sudden become the 3rd team in the state because they are in the BCS? I think this all about perceptions and politics and for whatever reason ECU is looked at as small time to the big east or the administration must have stepped on their toes along the way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:52 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1150
Quinn wrote:
ECU and USM do nothing to improve the Big East football profile...


I'd bet against this with two hands and both of mine. I don't doubt these new members will get better recruits because of the BCS access, like USF, UConn, and Cincy have, but that would be true for ECU and USM, too. And they already are good, and know how to maintain it.

Quote:
nor their revenue profile.


Good packaging and marketing gets looks. Good products get sold.

I do believe it helps the Big East getting schools who have historically better basketball programs than football, like Houston, Memphis, and Temple, to add to Louisville and Cincy. I believe the Big East won't make up for its recent losses with these gains, but they help. They pick up metropolitan markets, and that is great, too.

What's the difference between 200 viewers in 2,000 and 200 in 2,000,000? One stays on television and one does not. Good programs playing other good programs gets attention. Nobody in Houston wants to see Boise run over Temple. That's what the new Big East reality is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:58 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3813
thompson, bishin...

We're all entitled to our opinions. But at some point, when we have the type of data we have gotten from the Big East...like inviting 12 schools to join for football, 14 including DePaul and Marquette, one needs to take a look at ones opinions. We're not talking ECU being passed over by just a few big time programs. We're talking ECU being passed over for the likes of Temple, Memphis, SMU, Houston...even UCF...even USF, a program that wasn't even FBS for long before joining.

ECU wasn't seen as fit to join the Big East. Now that the Big East is down to 1 original member, lowly Rutgers, the conference is now made up of 7 CUSA members...and ECU was not included.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:54 am 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:22 pm
Posts: 5
What I am getting at is the excuses on why ECU is not in the big east are not true. Because there are 4 BCS teams in NC has nothing to do with it. This is all politics. The UNC system has tried to keep ECU down for years by trying to allow us university status, trying to stop the making of our medical school as well as the dental school. Somewhere along the lines ESPN is running the show and somewhere ECU has either a bad relationship with ESPN, the big east, or the ACC who may be telling ESPN that bringing in ECU to the big east would lower the ACCs TV contract. This is all speculation, but to say temple and san diego state bring more to the big east is ridiculous. Its the behind work that is keeping ECU out and will eventually be the death of the athletic programs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:58 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1150
Quinn, were there actual credible data from the Big East explaining these decisions, I'd be happy to leave it at that. I do agree that it's anyone's guess why things are the way they are. But I don't believe the Big East is better without ECU.

My hope is that ECU finds a place that situates them equally but well apart from some of their historical "enemies," like Louisville.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group