College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

[unofan]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Nebraska's big rival is Kansas St., and CU has Colorado St.

And you're an idiot if you believe that. Nebraska's never considered Kansas St. anything more than another conference opponent. Nebraska's rival pre-Big XII was Oklahoma. Since the Big XII formed they haven't had one.

Colorado has Nebraska in red letters every year. Nebraska doesn't really reciprocate, but since it's always played the day after Thanksgiving, it's as close to a rivalry as Nebraska has at this point.

 

[blockski]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

And you're an idiot if you believe that. Nebraska's never considered Kansas St. anything more than another conference opponent. Nebraska's rival pre-Big XII was Oklahoma. Since the Big XII formed they haven't had one.

Colorado has Nebraska in red letters every year. Nebraska doesn't really reciprocate, but since it's always played the day after Thanksgiving, it's as close to a rivalry as Nebraska has at this point.

Yep. Same thing happens in a lot of places. Iowa State may have Iowa circled, but I'd wager that Iowa's games against Minnesota and Wisconsin are more rivalrous.

 

[unofan]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Oh yeah, Nebraska goes to the Big Televen about the same time the Ivy League adds Syracuse.

The only people saying Nebraska might leave for the Big Televen are blinded Husker fans. The academics aren't there, for one, nor is Omaha/Lincoln the biggest media market in the world. If any Big XII team joins the Big Televen, it'll be Mizzou.

 

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Oh yeah, Nebraska goes to the Big Televen about the same time the Ivy League adds Syracuse.

The only people saying Nebraska might leave for the Big Televen are blinded Husker fans. The academics aren't there, for one, nor is Omaha/Lincoln the biggest media market in the world. If any Big XII team joins the Big Televen, it'll be Mizzou.

Interesting. I'm guessing the complete lack of interest in Iowa State as a rival is the reason why the Big Ten has little interest in them as a candidate.

It will be interesting to see what the Plain States conference will do if Colorado and Mizzou leave. It could bring back some of the old Big 8 rivalries, but I imagine the money of the Conference title game would force them to look for replacements (TCU and ?)

 

[Handyman]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

I was always under the impression that Iowa State had no interest in being in the Big Ten.

 

[French Rage]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

I don't get the talk about Texas potentially joining the Big 10 or Pac 10 (though schools there don't seem to want them). Are they really that unhappy with the Big 12? The Big 12 seems to be pretty competitive in the major sports and they seem to fit geographically. Does Texas really want out or is that just pipe dreams for people wanting them in their conference?

 

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

I don't get the talk about Texas potentially joining the Big 10 or Pac 10 (though schools there don't seem to want them). Are they really that unhappy with the Big 12? The Big 12 seems to be pretty competitive in the major sports and they seem to fit geographically. Does Texas really want out or is that just pipe dreams for people wanting them in their conference?

As I recall the main driver was academics. Texas (rightly) sees itself on a different level than the rest of the conference.

 

[alfablue]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

As I recall the main driver was academics. Texas (rightly) sees itself on a different level than the rest of the conference.

Even with the academics, I always thought Texas as one of the main pillars of the B12. Perhaps that preception isn't correct.

Very interesting.

(note- as a member of THE consumer good manufacturing industry of the midwest, Texas is as advertised. We do a lot with them and other partners in the state...)

I'll repeat myself, very interesting.

 

[blockski]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Interesting. I'm guessing the complete lack of interest in Iowa State as a rival is the reason why the Big Ten has little interest in them as a candidate.

The Big Ten has no interest in Iowa State because they bring nothing to the table - no new media markets, no real upside in national prestige, no new rivalries (they already play Iowa every year).

In short, they don't bring anything to the table that makes it worth sharing the revenue 12 ways instead of just 11.

I don't get the talk about Texas potentially joining the Big 10 or Pac 10 (though schools there don't seem to want them). Are they really that unhappy with the Big 12? The Big 12 seems to be pretty competitive in the major sports and they seem to fit geographically. Does Texas really want out or is that just pipe dreams for people wanting them in their conference?

The Big 12's TV contract pales in comparison to the revenue that the Big Ten and SEC bring in. It's not even close. That's why there's general instability in the Big 12.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

Even with the academics, I always thought Texas as one of the main pillars of the B12. Perhaps that preception isn't correct.

Very interesting.

(note- as a member of THE consumer good manufacturing industry of the midwest, Texas is as advertised. We do a lot with them and other partners in the state...)

I'll repeat myself, very interesting.

In the long term picture, Texas is a relatively newcomer to the B12, having spent a long time in the SWAC prior to its dissolution. I think a major thing that keeps Texas in the B12 is geography, as it'd be a bit odd for the flagship team of the state of Texas to be in a conference that is based in another part of the country, whether the west coast or midwest. But, overall, Texas has to have some interest in being affiliated with a conference like the Big Ten or Pac Ten that has higher prestige when you count academics and all.

To me I don't think there is likely to be additions to the Pac Ten anytime soon. No teams are a good enough fit that would likely want to join. I think a Missouri move to the Big Ten might be more likely, as it makes sense at least in some ways. Just my opinion.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

I don't get the talk about Texas potentially joining the Big 10 or Pac 10 (though schools there don't seem to want them). Are they really that unhappy with the Big 12? The Big 12 seems to be pretty competitive in the major sports and they seem to fit geographically. Does Texas really want out or is that just pipe dreams for people wanting them in their conference?

$.

 

[French Rage]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

One problem is people saying if we get one school in state X, we shouldn't add another school in state X since it wouldn't bring a new market. By that reasoning, we should have only added one of UA and ASU since the other only adds minor additional viewership. If we want to keep the natural rivalries of the Pac 10 alive, there will be some overlap of the two new teams (be it BYU/Utah, Colorado/Colorado St, or UNLV/Nevada). I'd prefer that over adding some team like Missouri who is hours away and has no natural rival and seems just thrown in there for the hell of it.

Also, how do UNLV/Nevada rank in terms of academics?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

One problem is people saying if we get one school in state X, we shouldn't add another school in state X since it wouldn't bring a new market. By that reasoning, we should have only added one of UA and ASU since the other only adds minor additional viewership. If we want to keep the natural rivalries of the Pac 10 alive, there will be some overlap of the two new teams (be it BYU/Utah, Colorado/Colorado St, or UNLV/Nevada). I'd prefer that over adding some team like Missouri who is hours away and has no natural rival and seems just thrown in there for the hell of it.

Also, how do UNLV/Nevada rank in terms of academics?

I don't think Nevada or UNLV would get consideration. I'm not sure, but I think the academics aren't comparable to Pac schools.

There just isn't a tidy pairing of teams to add to the Pac, which is probably more important in the Pac, given that all ten current teams come in nice pairs. I think the Arizona expansion was in a different era, so not really comparable. But even then, U of A and ASU both are major state universities in sizable metro areas. The Utah pair is the most likely, in my opinion, but at the end of the day, it'd be hard to get real excited about Utah and BYU being in the Pac. Nothing against them, but they don't really raise the profile of the conference much, which is what people are looking for.

Haven't seen anyone suggesting Missouri to the Pac.

 

[blockski]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

One problem is people saying if we get one school in state X, we shouldn't add another school in state X since it wouldn't bring a new market. By that reasoning, we should have only added one of UA and ASU since the other only adds minor additional viewership. If we want to keep the natural rivalries of the Pac 10 alive, there will be some overlap of the two new teams (be it BYU/Utah, Colorado/Colorado St, or UNLV/Nevada). I'd prefer that over adding some team like Missouri who is hours away and has no natural rival and seems just thrown in there for the hell of it.

Also, how do UNLV/Nevada rank in terms of academics?

They'd say that about UA and ASU if they were trying to join in today's television and media environment.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

They'd say that about UA and ASU if they were trying to join in today's television and media environment.

No they wouldn't. Phoenix is a major media market that would be highly coveted by any conference with a shot to get a team in it. Tucson's a lot smaller, but given the high number of U of A alums in the Phoenix area, there's a heavy draw for both schools throughout Arizona.

If the Pac covets the Denver area, as people have indicated in the desire for Colorado to possibly join the Pac, they'd certainly also covet the Phoenix area.

Or if you're talking academics, I can give a rundown on that. ASU and U of A aren't the weakest schools in the Pac regarding academic excellence, research, etc.

 

[blockski]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

No they wouldn't. Phoenix is a major media market that would be highly coveted by any conference with a shot to get a team in it. Tucson's a lot smaller, but given the high number of U of A alums in the Phoenix area, there's a heavy draw for both schools throughout Arizona.

If the Pac covets the Denver area, as people have indicated in the desire for Colorado to possibly join the Pac, they'd certainly also covet the Phoenix area.

Or if you're talking academics, I can give a rundown on that. ASU and U of A aren't the weakest schools in the Pac regarding academic excellence, research, etc.

You're missing my point, Bob. It's not that Phoenix isn't a big media market, it's that there's no need to take both schools in order to secure it.

Furthermore, these kinds of media-based decisions were not nearly as important back in the late 70s as they are today. Re-read Frenchy's post - he's lamenting the days when media markets weren't a primary driver of these things. Back in the 70s, they weren't. They are now.

I'd also note that PHX's media market size back in the 70s wasn't nearly as strong as it is now.

Like it or not, the criteria have changed. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

You're missing my point, Bob. It's not that Phoenix isn't a big media market, it's that there's no need to take both schools in order to secure it.

Furthermore, these kinds of media-based decisions were not nearly as important back in the late 70s as they are today. Re-read Frenchy's post - he's lamenting the days when media markets weren't a primary driver of these things. Back in the 70s, they weren't. They are now.

I'd also note that PHX's media market size back in the 70s wasn't nearly as strong as it is now.

Like it or not, the criteria have changed. That's all I'm saying.

I didn't miss your point. ASU is in the Phoenix market, so of course you would want them. But, a good chunk of the Phoenix market is U of A alums that live here, so if you really want to capture the full Phoenix market, you'd want both schools. It's a nuance a lot of out-of-staters don't realize.

I assumed when you said ASU and U of A joining today that we weren't using a time warp to take 1970s ASU and U of A to join the Pac in 2010, but talking about ASU and U of A like they are today, trying to join today. Of course lots of things were different in the 70s, but it'd be a no-brainer for ASU and U of A to join today if they weren't in the Pac already.

 

[blockski]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

I didn't miss your point. ASU is in the Phoenix market, so of course you would want them. But, a good chunk of the Phoenix market is U of A alums that live here, so if you really want to capture the full Phoenix market, you'd want both schools. It's a nuance a lot of out-of-staters don't realize.

I assumed when you said ASU and U of A joining today that we weren't using a time warp to take 1970s ASU and U of A to join the Pac in 2010, but talking about ASU and U of A like they are today, trying to join today. Of course lots of things were different in the 70s, but it'd be a no-brainer for ASU and U of A to join today if they weren't in the Pac already.

You don't need those alums to capture the market, Bob. You need a local draw to get on TV - particularly if you're pushing for a TV deal like the Big Ten has or pushing your own network.

Anyway, PHX wasn't nearly as big of a market back in the late 70s, either.

I'm just saying the criteria for expansion are different now. Not meant to be a knock on your fair city.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

You don't need those alums to capture the market, Bob. You need a local draw to get on TV - particularly if you're pushing for a TV deal like the Big Ten has or pushing your own network.

Anyway, PHX wasn't nearly as big of a market back in the late 70s, either.

I'm just saying the criteria for expansion are different now. Not meant to be a knock on your fair city.

You'll get a lot better ratings locally if you have both ASU and U of A. They're the only really large universities in the state and so most college sports fans in Phoenix are either ASU or U of A followers. You leave out the U of A, and your hold is much weaker on the Phoenix market, and some other conference grabbing U of A would give them a good share of the Phoenix market. Last night I went to watch the ASU-Oregon State game on TV, and the only game on was U of A vs. Oregon.

Of course Phoenix wasn't nearly as big back in the 70s. No one is arguing differently. Hey, it's more than doubled in size since I moved here in the late 80s. But, how big Phoenix was back in the 70s is immaterial to whether the Pac would want ASU and U of A today if they weren't already members.

I don't see you knocking Arizona at all. Just trying to explain some local dynamics some folks don't realize.

At the end of the day, ASU and U of A are much stronger and more logical candidates for joining the Pac (if they weren't already in) than any of the teams under discussion now. Not even close.

 

[blockski]

Re: College Football 2009: Where Championships are won by a majority vote

You'll get a lot better ratings locally if you have both ASU and U of A. They're the only really large universities in the state and so most college sports fans in Phoenix are either ASU or U of A followers. You leave out the U of A, and your hold is much weaker on the Phoenix market, and some other conference grabbing U of A would give them a good share of the Phoenix market. Last night I went to watch the ASU-Oregon State game on TV, and the only game on was U of A vs. Oregon.

Of course Phoenix wasn't nearly as big back in the 70s. No one is arguing differently. Hey, it's more than doubled in size since I moved here in the late 80s. But, how big Phoenix was back in the 70s is immaterial to whether the Pac would want ASU and U of A today if they weren't already members.

I don't see you knocking Arizona at all. Just trying to explain some local dynamics some folks don't realize.

At the end of the day, ASU and U of A are much stronger and more logical candidates for joining the Pac (if they weren't already in) than any of the teams under discussion now. Not even close.

Yeah, but that's not the question. UA and ASU were under consideration back in the late 70s, and the circumstances were completely different - both for their resumes and the criteria conferences were looking for.

And ratings alone aren't necessarily the key issue, footprint matters more. That's why the Big Ten is uninterested in Iowa State. That's why an obvious athletic and academic fit like Pitt is also on the outside looking in. That's why the Pad-10 would be far more interested in Colorado alone, not Colorado State. It's also why it would make more business sense for the Pac-10 to grab Utah and Colorado (and grab both the Salt Lake and Denver markets) instead of Utah-BYU, or Colo-Colo St.

Basically, the marginal benefit to complete domination of a market is slim compared to the foothold into it.