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...