nelsonmuntz
Point Center
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 44,236
- Reaction Score
- 33,139
Isn't that what the MWC and C-USA unsuccessfully tried to do a few months back? Not sure why it would work this time with the Big East and basically the remains of the MWC.....I like the thinking though.
-this league is huge all together so it wont hurt at all if any 1 or more teams gets invites elsewhere.
-the team i listed above basically create a huge divide between the top 6 leagues and then the mac and new cusa. its not even close.
-.
Substitute "top 5 leagues" for "top 6 leagues" and you may be on to something.
No organization of any type gets stronger when you add members that are below the median strength that exists before their addition. I don't understand why that concept gives so many here so much trouble. We did not strengthen ourselves by adding Memphis. We did not strengthen ourselves by adding Temple. And we will not be strengthening ourselves by adding schools that we didn't look at adding while we still had Temple and Memphis to go to.
so when the big east was down to uconn/ruty/cincy/lville/usf your saying we should not have added anyone(maybe bsu?).so lets stay at 5 schools who could never as result fill a fball schedule unless they play each other twice.
No need to go all Muntz on me and put words in my mouth just to disagree with them. You are way better than that.
Where did I criticize adding SMU, UCF, Houston and Boise? I didn't. We did that to replace teams we lost. So where do you get that I would be o.k. staying at five.
Temple and Memphis weren't needed to stay at 8 and made us weaker. Adding more crap, unless we need to in order to get to 8, will make us weaker. Not stronger. That's all I said
Substitute "top 5 leagues" for "top 6 leagues" and you may be on to something.
No organization of any type gets stronger when you add members that are below the median strength that exists before their addition. I don't understand why that concept gives so many here so much trouble. We did not strengthen ourselves by adding Memphis. We did not strengthen ourselves by adding Temple. And we will not be strengthening ourselves by adding schools that we didn't look at adding while we still had Temple and Memphis to go to.
BL, if your point is that we shouldn't be adding a bunch of weak small-market western teams, then I think you have a good point. But I don't think you can say that the overall move of getting to 12 weakened the league. It looks like it strengthened the league considerably. We'll see how the TV contract negotiations turn out - without any track record the league won't get top dollar - but it'll certainly be worth more than a northeast regional league.
We did not strengthen ourselves by adding Memphis. We did not strengthen ourselves by adding Temple. And we will not be strengthening ourselves by adding schools that we didn't look at adding while we still had Temple and Memphis to go to.
I think the five that got us to 10, UCF / Houston / SMU / Boise / SDSU, clearly increased the median value of the league, both in terms of football strength (Boise and Houston being in top 10, others with potential), recruiting potential (Texas and Florida), and TV markets (Orlando #19, Houston #10, Dallas #5, San Diego #28)
Temple and Memphis definitely weakened the football, but the calculation is that revenue per team is greater with 12 teams and a conference championship game, and it's all about TV revenue.
Unfortunately there weren't a lot of good choices available for #11 and #12. Philadelphia is the #4 TV market and Memphis the #48 TV market. Not saying Temple brings Philly, but overall these two must have seemed like they add more viewers than other available schools. BYU and Air Force weren't coming, not immediately anyway, Army didn't come, and after those there are slim pickings. Eastern Carolina, Western Michigan, Ohio, those are the kind of choices that are left.
Within this context, we did strengthen ourselves by adding Memphis and Temple, even though they are below the median value. It is the value of getting to 12 teams that makes them valuable.
BL, if your point is that we shouldn't be adding a bunch of weak small-market western teams, then I think you have a good point. But I don't think you can say that the overall move of getting to 12 weakened the league. It looks like it strengthened the league considerably. We'll see how the TV contract negotiations turn out - without any track record the league won't get top dollar - but it'll certainly be worth more than a northeast regional league.
so you would rather have a conf of 9 with 1 of those schools being closer to alaska then any other team? and are those 4 schools added fball only or all sports in your eyes?
so you would rather have a conf of 9 with 1 of those schools being closer to alaska then any other team? and are those 4 schools added fball only or all sports in your eyes?
Substitute "top 5 leagues" for "top 6 leagues" and you may be on to something.
No organization of any type gets stronger when you add members that are below the median strength that exists before their addition. I don't understand why that concept gives so many here so much trouble. We did not strengthen ourselves by adding Memphis. We did not strengthen ourselves by adding Temple. And we will not be strengthening ourselves by adding schools that we didn't look at adding while we still had Temple and Memphis to go to.
It's funny that dozens of posters here claim they could have run the Big East better than the leadership the last half decade, but now people want to chalk up Temple and Memphis as smart decision and attribute to experts.
I thought everything we did made perfect sense, up to adding Temple and Memphis.