How Many More Teams Can We Lose And Keep The Bcs?

[Point6]

I know there is no answer in the bylaws but we have to be near that point. Big 12 did not (would not?) take the kill shot. It seems to me ACC has the most to lose if Rutgers and UConn anchor another BCS conference - and all the "haves" (i.e., every BCS school) must be rooting against another crop of new BCS schools. Any chance ACC goes in for the kill sooner than later?

 

[Revrat]

Who knows. but if we get the western teams we are looking at and The SEC raids the ACC it's not the New Big East that is the weak league. Will we have old football names? no but the BCS rankings and recent success will be on our side. So I don't think the ACC will wait forever. Im just worried they would go Louisville\Rutgers instead of UConn\Rutgers. As things are now there is no reason For Notre Dame to go anywhere so look for oen of the other leagues to try and put another nail in the Big East coffin soon.

 

[Heston]

Not sure any teams matter. The Big East can easily lose its BCS bid at the next contract. To those outside the Big East, the New New Big East is an expanded conf USA.

Is there a team that would move the needle much lower if they left? I dont think so. On a relative basis, UL would be the worst loss.

The Big East is dead. The only question is, can it reinvent itself in some other way that retains BCS access, decent bowl tie-ins, and a media contract worth some decent coin?

 

[FfldCntyFan]

If we can maintain the continuity rule (which will become far more difficult with each school we need to replace) we will maintain BCS status through this contract (through 2014 I believe). Beyond that, it will come down to who the replacements are (and what rule changes if any are implemented).

 

[tzznandrew]

Who knows. but if we get the western teams we are looking at and The SEC raids the ACC it's not the New Big East that is the weak league. Will we have old football names? no but the BCS rankings and recent success will be on our side. So I don't think the ACC will wait forever. Im just worried they would go Louisville\Rutgers instead of UConn\Rutgers. As things are now there is no reason For Notre Dame to go anywhere so look for oen of the other leagues to try and put another nail in the Big East coffin soon.

This may be true (say they take FSU and Tech/Clemson).

I'd still jump to the ACC in a heartbeat.

 

[Excalibur]

Where are people getting the SEC adding FSU and/or Clemson? To what end?

 

[tzznandrew]

Personally, I was just going with a worst-case scenario from the previous poster. I am not convinced that the SEC is going to raid the ACC.

Regardless, if they did seriously weaken the ACC's football, I would still want UConn to go there rather than remain in whatever we are left in.

 

[Excalibur]

I was responding more to Revrat. I agree with you.

 

[ctchamps]

Revrat is correct in that the conferences are still in a state of flux and that if his hypothetical event happens, the SEC raids the ACC, the NBE could end up a stronger conference. At this moment in time that is an extreme long shot. But events constantly change and listing the hypothetical possibilities, even if they are long shots are valuable for long term planning.

After the BE regular season in men's bb last season, in which UConn was 9-9 and lost 4 out of 5 and 5 out of 8, no one was giving UConn a chance to win the NCAA's. But the five game BE tournament win streak changed the perspective of viewers and players alike. There are twists and turns to events, some twists with higher predictability than others.

After the 2003 raid by the ACC, the BE was supposed to be dead. That didn't happen and the BE regained enough status to be equal to the ACC if not marginally better.

So we can't count out a raid on the ACC by the SEC or the B!G for that matter, and depending what happens with the BE, and what type of raid might take place in the ACC, the NBE can leapfrog the ACC in being a stronger conference.

 

[Heston]

Where are people getting the SEC adding FSU and/or Clemson? To what end?

If the SEC could add the rumored ACC targets, the SEC would add them over Missouri. If Missouri is ultimately offered, that means the other options (ACC schools or any other the SEC considered) did not happen.

 

[Heston]

One other thing, the SEC Commish, Mike Slive is on record as saying he wants "new markets" and "new states". FSU and Clemson are not new markets. VT would be another story. Again, the SEC has definitely made inquiries. IF Missouri is offered, those schools passed totally or for at least this round of expansion.

 

[upstater]

If the SEC could add the rumored ACC targets, the SEC would add them over Missouri. If Missouri is ultimately offered, that means the other options (ACC schools or any other the SEC considered) did not happen.

Nope.
Missouri is a pretty big prize, no matter what you say. Most of the ACC pales in comparison to what Missouri offers.

 

[ctchamps]

This post upstater.

Here's an interesting link. Hard to imagine it's accuracy with UCF's football program being worth a lot more than FSU.

http://www.ibj.com/the-score/2011/1...ting-reveals-winners-losers/PARAMS/post/30084

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Revrat is correct in that the conferences are still in a state of flux and that if his hypothetical event happens, the SEC raids the ACC, the NBE could end up a stronger conference. At this moment in time that is an extreme long shot. But events constantly change and listing the hypothetical possibilities, even if they are long shots are valuable for long term planning.

Yeah, and there really is a chance that the gazillion dollar TV contract the Washington Post mentioned will happen.

While the possibility could exist that the NBE would over the course of a few seasons have a better football and men's basketball conference, this will not make the BE a stronger conference. Evidently many were not paying attention in the early-mid 1990's when Jim Calhoun was speaking (basically in comparisons of UConn to UMass, although he would never specially mention them) of the differences between having a strong team and building a strong program. Using the logic above, someone can argue that Butler is now a stronger basketball program than UNC. This is nowhere near the reality even if Butler did ahve the success they experienced over the past two seasons.

 

[ctchamps]

Yeah, and there really is a chance that the gazillion dollar TV contract the Washington Post mentioned will happen.

While the possibility could exist that the NBE would over the course of a few seasons have a better football and men's basketball conference, this will not make the BE a stronger conference. Evidently many were not paying attention in the early-mid 1990's when Jim Calhoun was speaking (basically in comparisons of UConn to UMass, although he would never specially mention them) of the differences between having a strong team and building a strong program. Using the logic above, someone can argue that Butler is now a stronger basketball program than UNC. This is nowhere near the reality even if Butler did ahve the success they experienced over the past two seasons.

But Gonzago might be considered a better bb program than St. Johns.

 

[nycscooby]

I know there is no answer in the bylaws but we have to be near that point. Big 12 did not (would not?) take the kill shot. It seems to me ACC has the most to lose if Rutgers and UConn anchor another BCS conference - and all the "haves" (i.e., every BCS school) must be rooting against another crop of new BCS schools. Any chance ACC goes in for the kill sooner than later?

i believe that the BCS ship has sailed and UCF, SMU, Houston, AFA, Boise and whomever else gets invited isn't bringing her back to port. Once Cincy and Ville leave that will be the guaranty.

 

[Heston]

Nope.
Missouri is a pretty big prize, no matter what you say. Most of the ACC pales in comparison to what Missouri offers.

Nope.
Missouri is a pretty big prize, no matter what you say. Most of the ACC pales in comparison to what Missouri offers.

Nope.
Missouri is a pretty big prize, no matter what you say. Most of the ACC pales in comparison to what Missouri offers.

Not even close. I wish I could post what I know,but the SEC does not agree with you and Missouri was not close to their top choice. Nothing wrong with Missouri, but I will leave it at what I can say.

 

[upstater]

Not even close. I wish I could post what I know,but the SEC does not agree with you and Missouri was not close to their top choice. Nothing wrong with Missouri, but I will leave it at what I can say.

BS. I doubt you know anything. This is not a mystery. All you need to do is look at ratings to realize what Missouri brings as opposed to a podunk South Carolina market.

I've been saying that FSU is a real catch all along, but otherwise, the ACC is composed of small fry.

 

[ctchamps]

BS. I doubt you know anything. This is not a mystery. All you need to do is look at ratings to realize what Missouri brings as opposed to a podunk South Carolina market.

I've been saying that FSU is a real catch all along, but otherwise, the ACC is composed of small fry.

Hey, I live in SC and although there is a lot of things I would love to see changed we're ahead of Mississippi, Alabamba and Arkansas in a lot of categories. The relative lack of wealth and performance in education in this state is deceiving. There is a large population that is below the poverty level. I believe it is the second largest in the country, and that drags down the average household earnings and really impacts the scores in education measurements. However, there is a sizable population that has a disposable income to spend on luxury items, so they can and do support the in state schools. The vision of the leadership in this state makes me scratch my head a lot, but I was expecting worse when I moved down here from CT.

BTW, did you click on the link I gave to the IBJ valuation of university football programs. The FSU valuation is really odd.

 

[upstater]

Hey, I live in SC and although there is a lot of things I would love to see changed we're ahead of Mississippi, Alabamba and Arkansas in a lot of categories. The relative lack of wealth and performance in education in this state is deceiving. There is a large population that is below the poverty level. I believe it is the second largest in the country, and that drags down the average household earnings and really impacts the scores in education measurements. However, there is a sizable population that has a disposable income to spend on luxury items, so they can and do support the in state schools. The vision of the leadership in this state makes me scratch my head a lot, but I was expecting worse when I moved down here from CT.

BTW, did you click on the link I gave to the IBJ valuation of university football programs. The FSU valuation is really odd.

Thanks for laying that out. Maybe it's just the size of Missouri and its cities that impresses me. TV viewership, etc.

No, I didn't see the IBJ link.

 

[ctchamps]

Thanks for laying that out. Maybe it's just the size of Missouri and its cities that impresses me. TV viewership, etc.

No, I didn't see the IBJ link.

Believe me I wasn't insulted. Living here has been interesting. A lot of the perspectives about SC are accurate, but not analyzed in depth imo.

Regarding athletics: South Carolina is similar to Connecticut in that it does not offer any professional teams to compete with college athletics. Here is the link again. South Carolina's flagship schools are in the top 25 according to this valuation. Florida State is the greatest oddity imo. I'm interested in your analysis of the article and the way valuations were calculated. You have a great handle on school valuations.

Link: http://www.ibj.com/the-score/2011/1...ting-reveals-winners-losers/PARAMS/post/30084

 

[upstater]

Link: http://www.ibj.com/the-score/2011/1...ting-reveals-winners-losers/PARAMS/post/30084

He did a really bad job, IMO.
First of all, when he says cash flow and profit, he doesn't tell us what he's looking at. So many programs don't aggregate contributions and such under football. Rutgers for instance doesn't look so bad for subsidizing football because the subsidy falls under all sports. Other schools however show student fees going directly to football. The fact that he saw a school lose many millions in football while Rutgers only loses a little tells me that his numbers are all screwed up, and that he hasn't accounted for how revenues are redistributed based on compliance with title9.

"And eight schools on the list have a negative valuation because they suck funds from the larger university to support operations."

This quote tells me that he doesn't have an appreciation for the difference in accounting.

All SEC and Big10 schools look great in these valuations because of TV income. A real analysis of how much they are worth would look at TV ratings and ticket revenue/contributions. That's how I would evaluate the worth of programs.

Indiana, for instance, comes out ahead of every BE team including WV simply because of conference affiliation, but if you looked at Indy's revenues after subtracting $25 million in Tv revs and compared them to WV's revs while subtracting $5 million in Tv revs, it's like night and day. WV blows them out of the water.

 

[Heston]

BS. I doubt you know anything. This is not a mystery. All you need to do is look at ratings to realize what Missouri brings as opposed to a podunk South Carolina market. I've been saying that FSU is a real catch all along, but otherwise, the ACC is composed of small fry.

You can say BS and I already said I can't post what I know. I really don't even need to say anything other than what is on the record to make a the case you are wrong.

Slive is on the record saying he wants new states and new markets. So your point about FSU is wrong, at least according to what Slive says the SEC criteria is for expansion. FSU is not a new market or new state. Nor is South Carolina which I am assuming you are bringing up because of Clemson. But neither Clemson nor FSU are new markets or new states.

True, Missouri is a new market and new state. But I have said that they are second fiddle to others the SEC wanted (wants), preferred (prefers) and approached.

So what schools are in the SEC world that would bring new markets and new states that are significantly bigger and better than Missouri? For example the states of North Carolina and Virginia. They each have millions of more people compared to Missouri. Both are growing significantly faster than Missouri (Virginia by nearly double Missouri and NC nearly triple the rate of Missouri). Beyond markets, there are schools in those states that have better athletic traditions and spend and raise more than Missouri on athletics. If you think the SEC just passed on those schools for Missouri without inquiring, go ahead. But it would defy logic to assume so.

 

[Heston]

BS. I doubt you know anything. This is not a mystery. All you need to do is look at ratings to realize what Missouri brings as opposed to a podunk South Carolina market.

I've been saying that FSU is a real catch all along, but otherwise, the ACC is composed of small fry.

2nd part:

Lastly, How you can say "Missouri is a pretty big prize" but in your next post call the ACC outside of FSU "small fry"? It seems hardly credible to call one a big prize and the other small fry when many of the small fries have better resumes than Missouri.

I will stand by what I said before, the SEC has approached other options before taking Missouri into the fold and it included ACC schools. If Missouri is ultimately offered, the SEC was rebuffed by all of the others they approached for this round of expansion. Missouri is the best the SEC could offer and have say yes.

I do not think Missouri is a small fry or a bad catch. They are the best the SEC could get after shopping for others that were higher on the list. For Uconn is this good or bad news? For this round of expansion,it was bad news. Because Missouri to the SEC means the ACC stayed together....for now.

 

[upstater]

You can say BS and I already said I can't post what I know. I really don't even need to say anything other than what is on the record to make a the case you are wrong.

Slive is on the record saying he wants new states and new markets. So your point about FSU is wrong, at least according to what Slive says the SEC criteria is for expansion. FSU is not a new market or new state. Nor is South Carolina which I am assuming you are bringing up because of Clemson. But neither Clemson nor FSU are new markets or new states.

True, Missouri is a new market and new state. But I have said that they are second fiddle to others the SEC wanted (wants), preferred (prefers) and approached.

So what schools are in the SEC world that would bring new markets and new states that are significantly bigger and better than Missouri? For example the states of North Carolina and Virginia. They each have millions of more people compared to Missouri. Both are growing significantly faster than Missouri (Virginia by nearly double Missouri and NC nearly triple the rate of Missouri). Beyond markets, there are schools in those states that have better athletic traditions and spend and raise more than Missouri on athletics. If you think the SEC just passed on those schools for Missouri without inquiring, go ahead. But it would defy logic to assume so.

FSU is a national brand in a big state. I don't care what Slive says for public consumption. FSU carries more eyeballs than guppies like NC State.