MSA populations of new BE markets

[gioff23]

I've never understood the TV market thing, so any insight is appreciated. Which conference is best positioned from a TV/BCS perspective? The SEC, period. How many major markets do they control? Which is 2d? Big 10, PAC 12? Which markets do they control? What does it matter that you get a market like Houston, when UH may be the 4th best draw on a sat in Houston. or a San Diego or Dallas? What comes from having non-CFB markets like Philly, New York, DC and Boston (meaning folks there care little for the local team, if there is one)? I mean the northeast has the most eyeballs, but is, at the end of the day, more of a pro football region than it is college FB. Is the argument we will have lots of folks who will pay for another channel (say, $10/year) to watch BE olympic sports (in terms of a BEN) or watch CFB games they can already see (in terms of ESPN contract)? I'm sure there is a logic, but I never see it - not when small towns in the south dominate the sport, followed by small cities hosting teams far away from Pro FB. I would appreciate a media 101 primer.

 

[RS9999X]

Then there would be no contracts with any conference in that scenario, which is not going to happen since the B1G and Pac 12 are NEVER giving up the Rose Bowl affiliation. Using your scenario, it would be based on rank with the top 12 teams getting the bowls. .

I'm saying just the opposite. The ACC will be left sucking eggs if the BCS is reduced to the National Game only and that goes to Jerry Jones or wherever on a yearly bid. The major bowls will contract with the BiG, B12, PAC-12 and SEC. The Orange Bowl will go from ACC Champion vs. BCS at-large to SEC v. B12.

 

[gars44]

Why would the bowls contract at all with anyone? Why wouldn't they just pick the most TV friendly, best traveling teams, each year? I understand that the Rose Bowl will have its deal with the BiG and the P12, but why the need to actually sign a contract? Especially the non P12 BiG bowls? When they can just take whoever they want each year?

 

[tduconn]

To some extent, fairly or unfairly, Pitt, WVU, Syracuse, VT and BC probably did suffer in recruiting because of the national perception of the caliber of BE football.
I think most of the success and recognition those teams achieved came when they were independents.

Even in a weak conference, UConn was always rated near the bottom as far as recruit rankings in the BE were judged. Current, historic and tradition rich BE conference members argue the same concepts the better teams in any other conference (ACC, Big 10, Big 12, etc) would argue if UConn were with their respective leagues........why choose UConn over us?

Would being in the ACC be better than the new BE? I absolutely think so......by a wide margin. Would you have better success selling potential recruits the opportunity to play against well recognized programs, or a "bunch of up and coming programs"? I would hedge a bet the quantity and quality of looks we get
from potential recruits would be better if the program was in a different established conference (ACC, Big whatever, etc)as opposed to the present or future makeup of the BE.

UConn continues to have growing pains in a weak BE. I was estatic over the win over Rutgers this past Saturday, but take away even half of the turnovers and the game would have a different outcome. UConn is not going to mount close to 200 or 300 yards in a quarter.......maybe not in a game.

I could live with growing pains in an established conference playing well recognized teams. At least the bar to reach for is higher. The geography of a new BE will not help UConn in recruiting. Why would a recruit in Texas chose UConn, Houston, or SMU over a team from Big 12, SEC, PAC 10? The BE will get the scraps.

Its unfortunate, but I think the new BE will equate to a talent drop for UConn.

 

[metsfan2323]

To some extent, fairly or unfairly, Pitt, WVU, Syracuse, VT and BC probably did suffer in recruiting because of the national perception of the caliber of BE football.
.

This ignores the fact that 10 years ago BC, VT, and Miami each had higher profile football teams then they do now. The move to the ACC has not helped them on the field at all. The tougher schedule in the ACC results in more losses and has a watering down effect on their national profile. The media and public focus in on the hot team and history is ignored. Right now Houston is probably a better TV draw for a bowl game than VT. 90% of football fans in the country probably couldn't name one player on VT but everyone knows who Case Keenum is.

Would UCONN be better off in the ACC than the new Big East? IMO yes absolutely, but is the new Big East with the western schools better than the current Big East? IMO yes, absolutely. The geography of the league IMO is not a negative for recruiting at all and may prove to be a huge benefit as far as TV viewership is concerned.

 

[06029]

This ignores the fact that 10 years ago BC, VT, and Miami each had higher profile football teams then they do now. The move to the ACC has not helped them on the field at all. The tougher schedule in the ACC results in more losses and has a watering down effect on their national profile. The media and public focus in on the hot team and history is ignored. Right now Houston is probably a better TV draw for a bowl game than VT. 90% of football fans in the country probably couldn't name one player on VT but everyone knows who Case Keenum is.

Would UCONN be better off in the ACC than the new Big East? IMO yes absolutely, but is the new Big East with the western schools better than the current Big East? IMO yes, absolutely. The geography of the league IMO is not a negative for recruiting at all and may prove to be a huge benefit as far as TV viewership is concerned.

All I can say is wow. Way to ignore reality. VT is currently ranked #5 in the BCS. They have finished ranked in the top 10 3 times since moving and in the top 25 all but 1 year since the move. BC has finished in the top 20 twice since moving. Miami has finished in the top 20 twice since the move. Are you suggesting that their results would have been better in the BE? At least acknowledge that their on the field results are no worse than if they stayed in the BE. That is akin to saying that Cinci and Lville have not thrived since moving to the BE and would have thrived just as well in C-USA. And Houston is a better draw than VT in a bowl game? Well that will be answered real soon. Keenum may be known but will that be a big enough draw? I personally have no interest in Houston since they have not been on my radar at all prior to this year. Tell me their best win this year. UCLA by 4? or their thriller against Louisiana Tech (1 pt victory) or their 7 point win versus UTEP? If they are outclassed early, that game will be turned off around the country.

 

[metsfan2323]

All I can say is wow. Way to ignore reality. VT is currently ranked #5 in the BCS. They have finished ranked in the top 10 3 times since moving and in the top 25 all but 1 year since the move. BC has finished in the top 20 twice since moving. Miami has finished in the top 20 twice since the move. Are you suggesting that their results would have been better in the BE.

Yes I am suggesting that all of that would have been accomplished in the Big East. No doubt about it. They also might have been in a few title games to boot.

 

[06029]

Yes I am suggesting that all of that would have been accomplished in the Big East. No doubt about it. They also might have been in a few title games to boot.

Based on...? All of the title games the BE have been in?There have been two BE teams in NC games, Miami and VT. I guess they could have done it in the BE but we all know what has happened to Miami since their last appearance.

Part of the reason for the move then, as it is now for Uconn wanting to move, is perception. WVU was the closest to a title game but with one loss that year fell to the Fiesta Bowl after Kansas and before Hawaii. What does that say about perception? They were behind the second place Big 12 team taht was in only because OK was in the championship game. Since 2003, to fill a BCS bowl slot, the BE team has never been the first team selected. WVU was second two times, Lville once, every other time, the BE school filled the last slot including the last 3 years in a row and probably 4 years in a row this year. The BE is perceived as the weak conference. Perception will not change with the add of Boise, Houston, SDSU, etc. More likely, the West division may have a perceived superiority based on Boise/Houston and when an east school wins, it will be because it is a down year in the west.

 

[CL82]

No one cares about UConn football now. We're semi-popular in the state of Connecticut and we were a nice story a couple of times over the past decade, but we're not a draw.

You don't become a name in ten years which is why we're in this spot -- from soup to nuts, assuming lacrosse is not a soup or nut, UConn's athletic department is bigger and more successful than Syracuse in nearly every way. But...they've been a 'name' in football for a hell of a lot longer and therefore they're gone and we're debating dreck like Houston and Boise.

And you take Boise and Houston into your TV contract negotiations and I will take Pitt and Syracuse into mine. You'll starve to death.

I am not arguing that they aren't nice programs and they're certainly successful this year, but they're not going to add any value past the fact that they exist. The conference merely avoids dying completely by adding these programs - which is the point and the only real option.

You're going to be able to watch UConn basketball on Big Monday and then UConn football on Smalltime Tuesday.

You sell what you have and you buy what's available. The Big East has demographics (population centers) and product over different time zones making it easier to fill a broadcast day. NBC Comcast can't get the rights to any other major conference. It may be a marriage of convenience but it is still a marriage. Bring enough money to the table and the conference stabilizes regardless of the crazy geography and the divergent interests of the members....if we can stay together that long.

 

[HuskyHawk]

You sell what you have and you buy what's available. The Big East has demographics (population centers) and product over different time zones making it easier to fill a broadcast day. NBC Comcast can't get the rights to any other major conference. It may be a marriage of convenience but it is still a marriage. Bring enough money to the table and the conference stabilizes regardless of the crazy geography and the divergent interests of the members....if we can stay together that long.

If it lasts two years, I'd be surprised. I continue to think it has a chance as an all sports league taking the best of the BE, CUSA, MWC and WAC. It will not continue as the Big East, with the existing BB only schools.

 

[gars44]

All I can say is wow. Way to ignore reality. VT is currently ranked #5 in the BCS. They have finished ranked in the top 10 3 times since moving and in the top 25 all but 1 year since the move. BC has finished in the top 20 twice since moving. Miami has finished in the top 20 twice since the move. Are you suggesting that their results would have been better in the BE? At least acknowledge that their on the field results are no worse than if they stayed in the BE. That is akin to saying that Cinci and Lville have not thrived since moving to the BE and would have thrived just as well in C-USA. And Houston is a better draw than VT in a bowl game? Well that will be answered real soon. Keenum may be known but will that be a big enough draw? I personally have no interest in Houston since they have not been on my radar at all prior to this year. Tell me their best win this year. UCLA by 4? or their thriller against Louisiana Tech (1 pt victory) or their 7 point win versus UTEP? If they are outclassed early, that game will be turned off around the country.

06, I'm not sure of your point. I could see if you were advocating for the B1G, or the B12. There is not a lot of excitement in ACC football, or haven't you noticed?

First, I agree with you that VT has done no worse in the ACC. If Syracuse had just left according to the original plan, though, VT would be the unquestioned heavyweight in the NBE, and the league would probably be stable today. Louisville, WVA, Pitt, Cincy and VT would be the center of the conference, with a few outliers to the north and south, e.g., Uconn, RU, USF, and whoever else. But at least there would have been an anchor team of sorts. VT has done well in the ACC, it would have done no worse in the NBE. It is a healthy program, committed to winning. Like we could be - I just don't see it happening in the ACC. Miami is Miami, doesn't matter what conference they're in. They will have great athletes, they will cheat, they will get caught, hit repeat, etc. BC, who knows? I don't see much difference in their performance in either conference.

Why will we not succeed in the ACC? Why will we do better in the NNBE? And why is it necessary for us to do better? Legitimate questions. This post is long enough already, sorry for that. We must do better than the run of the mill ACC program because we have too much ground to make up. We can not simply hold place. Why will we do better in the NNBE? Would we have ever had success if Miami and VT had stayed in the NBE? If Petrino and Rich Rod had stayed? Not a chance. We would have been Temple. This program would have looked like Buffalo right now. There would have been no BE champions. No Fiesta Bowl. No nothing. We do not have the institutional reserve to sustain us through losing seasons. We need to win and win now more than we need associations with more upscale programs. At this time.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

I would love to debate any takers on whether UConn would "do better" in the ACC vs. a re-reconstituted pile of leftovers. I believe most of the debate would be about what you and I mean by "do better," though.

 

[RS9999X]

Every other year there is an article like this on the ACC. It may be a better home than the BE but still may be quicksand

ACC champion doesn’t deserve a BCS bid
College Football — posted by on November, 21 2008

Big man (BCS) explains to little man (non-BCS) why mediocre ACC team gets to go to a major bowl


I couldn’t help but shudder when I read this paragraph from the Orlando Sentinel’s story on Georgia Tech’s 41-23 stampede of the Miami Hurricanes Thursday night
:
They (Tech) ran for a school-record 472 yards on 56 carries, and kept alive hopes of playing in the Atlantic Coast Conference championship game. The Hurricanes, once in control of their destiny, now need help if they are to play in the league championship Dec. 6 in Tampa.

My question: Why are either of these teams still in the running for the ACC championship?

Better yet, why does any ACC team deserve an automatic bid into lucrative BCS bowl?

To me, this is one of the many travesties of the BCS and the bowl system. Not only does the system do a terrible job of deciding who should play for the national championship, it rewards mediocrity by sending undeserving teams to the major bowls.

The two teams leading the ACC’s Atlantic and Coastal divisions are Maryland (7-3) and Georgia Tech (8-3). Think about this: It’s entirely possible that the Orange Bowl will pit Maryland against potential Big East champions Cincinnati. If I’m the director of the Orange Bowl, I’m seriously thinking about jumping off a bridge into the Biscayne Bay.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_bianchi/2008/11/acc-champion-do.html

 

[Jericho]

This ignores the fact that 10 years ago BC, VT, and Miami each had higher profile football teams then they do now. The move to the ACC has not helped them on the field at all. The tougher schedule in the ACC results in more losses and has a watering down effect on their national profile. The media and public focus in on the hot team and history is ignored. Right now Houston is probably a better TV draw for a bowl game than VT. 90% of football fans in the country probably couldn't name one player on VT but everyone knows who Case Keenum is.

Would UCONN be better off in the ACC than the new Big East? IMO yes absolutely, but is the new Big East with the western schools better than the current Big East? IMO yes, absolutely. The geography of the league IMO is not a negative for recruiting at all and may prove to be a huge benefit as far as TV viewership is concerned.

Not sure what you're arguing here? Teams should fatten up their records on weak teams to try and score BCS bowls? That the Big East is way worse than the ACC? That's not a selling point. And going 1998 Tulane or 2007 Hawaii to have a once in a blue moon undefeated season does not accomplish much long term. No on ecares about those schools these days.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Why will we not succeed in the ACC? Why will we do better in the NNBE? And why is it necessary for us to do better? Legitimate questions. This post is long enough already, sorry for that. We must do better than the run of the mill ACC program because we have too much ground to make up. We can not simply hold place. Why will we do better in the NNBE? Would we have ever had success if Miami and VT had stayed in the NBE? If Petrino and Rich Rod had stayed? Not a chance. We would have been Temple. This program would have looked like Buffalo right now. There would have been no BE champions. No Fiesta Bowl. No nothing. We do not have the institutional reserve to sustain us through losing seasons. We need to win and win now more than we need associations with more upscale programs. At this time.

There's a huge gap in between winning conference championships and being Buffalo.

I think we'd fall right in between, which coincidentally is where we are anyways.

 

[gars44]

Not sure what you're arguing here? Teams should fatten up their records on weak teams to try and score BCS bowls? That the Big East is way worse than the ACC? That's not a selling point. And going 1998 Tulane or 2007 Hawaii to have a once in a blue moon undefeated season does not accomplish much long term. No on ecares about those schools these days.

Who does anyone care about these days? Who do you care about? Who do you want to watch on TV? If Tulane or Hawaii are winning, I'll watch the flavor of the day. Other than Uconn, I like USC, ND, Miami maybe, a few others. But actually, I'll watch any football, so I really don't count. As a huge football fan, I don't really care. I'd rather watch a winning program like Boise State than your average team from whatever conference, ACC, SEC, B1G, it doesn't matter. I'm not going to skip raking the leaves to rush inside to watch that big NC State vs. North Carolina game, however. I doubt it's on TV anyway. The big time programs do fatten up on the lesser programs. They just do. No one cared about Alabama all those years when they weren't winning NCs. Nick Saban was paid $5MM/year to turn that around. After 17 years in the desert. All anyone cares about is winning. So, yes, teams do "fatten up their records on weak teams to get to BCS bowls." It works. Unless we go to a playoff system, that's what works best.

 

[gars44]

There's a huge gap in between winning conference championships and being Buffalo.

I think we'd fall right in between, which coincidentally is where we are anyways.

Not that huge if things had played out like I said. Temple was beaten into Bolivian by years of losing, to the point that they got kicked out of the conference for lack of interest. The fickle Connecticut fan is not going to show up for a losing program. I used to go to Memorial. Trust me on this. We need to win and win now.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Not that huge if things had played out like I said. Temple was beaten into Bolivian by years of losing, to the point that they got kicked out of the conference for lack of interest. The fickle Connecticut fan is not going to show up for a losing program. I used to go to Memorial. Trust me on this. We need to win and win now.

What makes you think that UConn couldn't have competed to a comparable level to what they have done?

Virginia Tech would have been a loss every year, but Miami and BC have both down considerably down for a few years now.

I don't see how we go from being a competitive 2 time Conference champ, to Temple/Buffalo because of a great VT program and a mediocre Miami and BC.

 

[gars44]

What makes you think that UConn couldn't have competed to a comparable level to what they have done?

Virginia Tech would have been a loss every year, but Miami and BC have both down considerably down for a few years now.

I don't see how we go from being a competitive 2 time Conference champ, to Temple/Buffalo because of a great VT program and a mediocre Miami and BC.

BC would have beaten the living crap out of us. Matt Ryan? The were in the top 10 for a while. They beat PSU, and VT. Miami would have beat us by 50 points. WVA with RR? Lville with Petino? We would never have had a winning record in that conference. And it would have put us back - I don't know how far. It would have turned us into a perennial doormat, with no hope of recovery, code Blue. Hello Temple? We lose to Temple, btw. Last year.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

BC would have beaten the living crap out of us. Matt Ryan? The were in the top 10 for a while. They beat PSU, and VT. Miami would have beat us by 50 points. WVA with RR? Lville with Petino? We would never have had a winning record in that conference. And it would have put us back - I don't know how far. It would have turned us into a perennial doormat, with no hope of recovery, code Blue. Hello Temple? We lose to Temple, btw. Last year.

Virginia Tech is a dominant program-no argument there.

Miami and BC have been mediocre for 5 years-is it that hard to imagine that we could go at least .500 against them in that time span?

We shared a co-championship with a RR WVA team, and Petrino was barely in the BE for a cup of coffee. I don't see how that is relevant one way or another.

Would we have won our two conference championships? Probably not, but who knows. Even Wake Forest was able to win the ACC 1 year playing with VT, Miami and BC.

But to say we would have been a "perennial doormat, with no hope of recovery" when the only difference would be 1 sure fire loss (to VT) every season? How do you draw that conclusion.

 

[gars44]

Virginia Tech is a dominant program-no argument there.

Miami and BC have been mediocre for 5 years-is it that hard to imagine that we could go at least .500 against them in that time span?

We shared a co-championship with a RR WVA team, and Petrino was barely in the BE for a cup of coffee. I don't see how that is relevant one way or another.

Would we have won our two conference championships? Probably not, but who knows. Even Wake Forest was able to win the ACC 1 year playing with VT, Miami and BC.

But to say we would have been a "perennial doormat, with no hope of recovery" when the only difference would be 1 sure fire loss (to VT) every season? How do you draw that conclusion.

One reason is .... that RR WVA team that we "shared" a conference championship with beat the crap out of us by about 40 points one night. It was like watching a midget football team playing the local high school. They could have beat us by 100 if thsy wanted. I hardly consider us their equal that year. Check BC's record the past 5 years. They have not been mediocre except for the Spaz era. Bad hire.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

One reason is .... that RR WVA team that we "shared" a conference championship with beat the crap out of us by about 40 points one night. It was like watching a midget football team playing the local high school. They could have beat us by 100 if thsy wanted. I hardly consider us their equal that year. Check BC's record the past 5 years. They have not been mediocre except for the Spaz era. Bad hire.

Right, but I'm not saying we were their equal. I'm saying we've been good and competitive in the Big East. You're saying UConn in a Big East with VT, Miami and BC would've been a conference doormat. I don't see how a competitive team, that has won 2 conference titles, would be a doormat playing the competition below.

As far as BC goes, I see nothing in the past 5 years that would indicate we couldn't at least be competitive with them.
2011 4-8...2010 7-6...2009 8-5...2008 9-5...2007 11-3

Same with Miami, here are their records the past 5 years. You're saying we don't at least .500 against these squads?
2011 6-6....2010 7-6.....2009 9-4....2008 7-6.....2007 5-7