BaltoBull

It's only a matter of time before they are 'given' to UF to 'ensure their success' and to 'raise their national profile' by being directly affiliated with the state's 'flagship school'. This has been the plan all along.

NC State makes a ton of sense if you are the SEC and you are trying to increase your TV VIEWERSHIP and MARKET SHARE. The SEC already has enough eyeballs on it in Florida. There's an awful lot of money to be made by expanding into North Carolina. Watch, NC State attendance will EXPLODE if they get the invite. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Should the SEC bring in projects? 2. There is probably more money in adding Syracuse and/or Pitt. 1. No more of a 'project' than Missouri, I think. The last time the Tigers won a conference was 1969. Since then, in the 16 they were in the B12, the Tigers made the CCG twice. - Before that, they weren't setting the world on fire. - NC State hasn't been that great either, to tell the truth. 2. Please. Upstate New York and Northwestern PA in the SEC? Really, dude? Hell, why don't we start applying to the PAC then? - This is all about forming viable networks with 'brand' names and being able to charge more to cable companies for carriage. It makes an AWFUL LOT of $en$e to add a school from NC and VA to the SEC. The SEC can add practically any 'brand' from the south it wants. It makes sense for the SEC to concentrate on the SOUTHEAST. They are not as desperate as the B12 was when they added WVA. - Personally, I can see a situation a lot like what moved A&M to the SEC. NC State would LOVE to move out of UNC's shadow, I think. Going to the SEC is a great way to do that. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NC State is more of a 'project' than Missouri. Missouri has one of the 25 (probably 23rd) largest college football fanbases. NC State has been estimated at 59th. Missouri is the flagship in its state. As you mentioned, NC State is behind UNC (and Duke-although not mentioned by you if I recall). 2. Pitt and SU are closer to the Southeast than we are to the Pacific Coast. The SEC needs NCSU to develop a brand? If the SEC needs population for carriage fees, then why not go with more popular and well-rounded schools in more populous states? If the SEC can just build brands, then why not select somebody with more potential? And, wouldn't desperation entail the requirement of being less selective? I personally have no problem with NCSU. I like the university and see it as a great institution USF should associate with. But, I do not like logical inconsistencies from people rationalizing NC State to the SEC-over other candidates-when they fail their own stated standards (I.e. fanbase size, probably television ratings, national appeal or brand, adding new population, etc.). 1.) No. I think you misunderstood me, or I wasn't clear. I was insinuating the SEC was only interested in "brands'. The SEC does not want to build 'brands' per se, but wants to include teams that are at least on the national radar. I also believe the SEC will not 'tarnish' it's brand by selecting a NBE school. 2.) Yes, geographically that's true, but again, you missed my point - it's the SOUTHEASTERN Conference. There is no way most schools belonging to the conference will accept a "Yankee" school. Being in the SOUTHEAST (read: south of the Mason-Dixon Line) is part of the conference's identity, more so than the other conferences, IMO. I do think Virginia is as far north as the conference will go. 3.) Yes. They want carriage fees. If they could get UNC, I bet they would. Most seem to think UNC is B10 bound (correct me if I'm wrong). What more popular schools, in a state not populated by and bordering a SEC state to you suggest? Oklahoma? Kansas? Illinois? Indiana? Ohio? 4.) More populous states are you referring to? For reference, as of 2012, North Carolina is the 10th most populated state, Virginia is 12th. Take a look at that map you referenced when you determined when Pitt and Syracuse were closer to the SEC than we are to the PAC and tell me how NC State, or any school in North Carolina does not fit PERFECTLY in the SEC's footprint. The SEC is not desperate, they hold the cards in this game and know exactly what they are doing. Please explain my logical inconsistencies. I welcome your response. -------------------------------------------------------------- There is no need to dismiss my arguments by claiming I missed your points. 1. If you are referring to being on the national radar, it would have to be quite inclusive for North Carolina State University. Missouri has a bigger national profile. 2. Unless WVU is a realistic option, I actually agree the SEC will never actually add non-Southern schools. Yes, the SEC will almost inevitably add NCSU. They care about potential culture. I just think there are more practical choices. 3. The obvious choices in the states you suggested are locked in grants of rights. But, there are nearby states with more valuable choices. 4.At least Virginia, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida have larger populations and more popular ACC teams without overlapping media markets with the SEC. Old Dominion and UNC-Charlotte also fit into the SEC footprint well. But, other teams are preferred because of factors other than completing the Old Confederacy footprint. I did not claim you use logical inconsistencies. I referred to a group of message board commenters in general, who contradict themselves. I thought about specifically saying you were not being referred to, but assumed it would be unnecessary. Sorry I was not more clear in that regard. Thank you for your acknowledgment, Florida.

NC State makes a ton of sense if you are the SEC and you are trying to increase your TV VIEWERSHIP and MARKET SHARE. The SEC already has enough eyeballs on it in Florida. There's an awful lot of money to be made by expanding into North Carolina. Watch, NC State attendance will EXPLODE if they get the invite. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Should the SEC bring in projects? 2. There is probably more money in adding Syracuse and/or Pitt. 1. No more of a 'project' than Missouri, I think. The last time the Tigers won a conference was 1969. Since then, in the 16 they were in the B12, the Tigers made the CCG twice. - Before that, they weren't setting the world on fire. - NC State hasn't been that great either, to tell the truth. 2. Please. Upstate New York and Northwestern PA in the SEC? Really, dude? Hell, why don't we start applying to the PAC then? - This is all about forming viable networks with 'brand' names and being able to charge more to cable companies for carriage. It makes an AWFUL LOT of $en$e to add a school from NC and VA to the SEC. The SEC can add practically any 'brand' from the south it wants. It makes sense for the SEC to concentrate on the SOUTHEAST. They are not as desperate as the B12 was when they added WVA. - Personally, I can see a situation a lot like what moved A&M to the SEC. NC State would LOVE to move out of UNC's shadow, I think. Going to the SEC is a great way to do that. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NC State is more of a 'project' than Missouri. Missouri has one of the 25 (probably 23rd) largest college football fanbases. NC State has been estimated at 59th. Missouri is the flagship in its state. As you mentioned, NC State is behind UNC (and Duke-although not mentioned by you if I recall). 2. Pitt and SU are closer to the Southeast than we are to the Pacific Coast. The SEC needs NCSU to develop a brand? If the SEC needs population for carriage fees, then why not go with more popular and well-rounded schools in more populous states? If the SEC can just build brands, then why not select somebody with more potential? And, wouldn't desperation entail the requirement of being less selective? I personally have no problem with NCSU. I like the university and see it as a great institution USF should associate with. But, I do not like logical inconsistencies from people rationalizing NC State to the SEC-over other candidates-when they fail their own stated standards (I.e. fanbase size, probably television ratings, national appeal or brand, adding new population, etc.). 1.) No. I think you misunderstood me, or I wasn't clear. I was insinuating the SEC was only interested in "brands'. The SEC does not want to build 'brands' per se, but wants to include teams that are at least on the national radar. I also believe the SEC will not 'tarnish' it's brand by selecting a NBE school. 2.) Yes, geographically that's true, but again, you missed my point - it's the SOUTHEASTERN Conference. There is no way most schools belonging to the conference will accept a "Yankee" school. Being in the SOUTHEAST (read: south of the Mason-Dixon Line) is part of the conference's identity, more so than the other conferences, IMO. I do think Virginia is as far north as the conference will go. 3.) Yes. They want carriage fees. If they could get UNC, I bet they would. Most seem to think UNC is B10 bound (correct me if I'm wrong). What more popular schools, in a state not populated by and bordering a SEC state to you suggest? Oklahoma? Kansas? Illinois? Indiana? Ohio? 4.) More populous states are you referring to? For reference, as of 2012, North Carolina is the 10th most populated state, Virginia is 12th. Take a look at that map you referenced when you determined when Pitt and Syracuse were closer to the SEC than we are to the PAC and tell me how NC State, or any school in North Carolina does not fit PERFECTLY in the SEC's footprint. The SEC is not desperate, they hold the cards in this game and know exactly what they are doing. Please explain my logical inconsistencies. I welcome your response.

NC State makes a ton of sense if you are the SEC and you are trying to increase your TV VIEWERSHIP and MARKET SHARE. The SEC already has enough eyeballs on it in Florida. There's an awful lot of money to be made by expanding into North Carolina. Watch, NC State attendance will EXPLODE if they get the invite. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Should the SEC bring in projects? 2. There is probably more money in adding Syracuse and/or Pitt. 1. No more of a 'project' than Missouri, I think. The last time the Tigers won a conference was 1969. Since then, in the 16 they were in the B12, the Tigers made the CCG twice. - Before that, they weren't setting the world on fire. - NC State hasn't been that great either, to tell the truth. 2. Please. Upstate New York and Northwestern PA in the SEC? Really, dude? Hell, why don't we start applying to the PAC then? - This is all about forming viable networks with 'brand' names and being able to charge more to cable companies for carriage. It makes an AWFUL LOT of $en$e to add a school from NC and VA to the SEC. The SEC can add practically any 'brand' from the south it wants. It makes sense for the SEC to concentrate on the SOUTHEAST. They are not as desperate as the B12 was when they added WVA. - Personally, I can see a situation a lot like what moved A&M to the SEC. NC State would LOVE to move out of UNC's shadow, I think. Going to the SEC is a great way to do that.

NC State makes a ton of sense if you are the SEC and you are trying to increase your TV VIEWERSHIP and MARKET SHARE. The SEC already has enough eyeballs on it in Florida. There's an awful lot of money to be made by expanding into North Carolina. Watch, NC State attendance will EXPLODE if they get the invite.

I think you're right. In fact, the more I think about this, the more I think it's already done. There are 64 teams ALREADY in the Power 5, plus ND. I don't think they're going to take any more teams from the lower divisions. I think they'll include ND as a football independent somehow, perhaps in a similar way to how they use to share bowls with the old Big East (and maaaaaybe BYU gets a similar arrangement, but I doubt it) If they're going to promote one of the "lesser 5" up to the "Power 5" then they're going to have to relegate someone to make room. I don't see that happening. The B12 and the ACC will end up merging after the B1G, SEC, and PAC are done picking their bones. And NONE of them are going to get relegated. Not Wake, not Baylor, not Iowa State, and certainly not Northwestern or Vandy. Face it folks, we are already on the outside, and it's time to be the Champion of the Lesser 5, 'cause we ain't never gettin' called up to the bigs now. A voice of reason. I will be happy when all of the nonsense is done, the rest of us will finally realized the door has been slammed shut in our face and we can move on. I really do prefer the idea of being reasonably near the top of the Go5 than perennially near the bottom of the 'power' 5.

I doubt Woolard will allow that. Too much pride. I think we're more likely to end up with more home-n-homes with lesser schools than payday games with greater schools. In any event, there's not much room for payday games until 2017 anyway. Who here thinks Sparty's going to buy out the return game and never show up in Tampa? Per: http://www.gousfbulls.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=7700&ATCLID=611637 2013 Schedule Aug.31 MCNEESE STATE TAMPA Sept. 7 at Michigan State East Lansing, Mich. Sept. 14 FAU TAMPA Sept. 28 MIAMI TAMPA 2014 Schedule Aug. 30 Western Carolina TAMPA Sept. 13 N.C. STATE TAMPA 2015 Schedule Sept. 5 FLORIDA A&M TAMPA Sept. 12 INDIANA TAMPA Oct. 3 NEVADA TAMPA 2016 Schedule Sept. 3 Towson TAMPA Sept. 17 at Indiana Bloomington 2017 Schedule TBA MICHIGAN STATE TAMPA I do.

Hem, what you are missing is we will no longer be on a national stage. You are referring to the time the BE was a BCS conference. Those days are over. The NBE is the new C-USA. YOU NEED TO REALIZE THIS. The $2 million a year NBC is offering us is chicken-**** compared to where we were before and what the other 'power conferences' are making. We've been knocked down. Furthermore, I could say you post in every thread I post in too, you know? I'm not saying everyone should agree with me, but I will post what I think is relevant and remain consistent with my beliefs. There are those who hammer diverging opinions to mine. I am simply stating what I (and apparently a few others) believe. I am more of a USF supporter and fan than you think I am. Finally, I don't think it is the end of USF Athletics. If you've been reading my posts, you'll see that I've suggested HELPING non-revenue sports and finding a niche we are competitive in. I simply think we need to stop chasing the carrot. No hard feelings. If you are anywhere near campus late next week - honestly, I'd love to meet you for a drink (or three). My treat and my pleasure. Please, let me know. Dunderbaks? World of Beer? I'd like to meet you and discuss anything other than USF Athletics if that is what you'd prefer.

Okay, so let's take a look at the enrollment bounce for "comparable" teams, (read: teams we now, or will play) since you MUST be able to acknowledge that we are no longer playing with the 'big boys', or are we still running with that premise? For the record, right now, according to About.com (I don't have a lot of time to crunch the numbers, sorry.) USF's admittance rate is 38% http://collegeapps.about.com/od/collegeprofiles/p/usf-tampa.htm Now, lets look at Conference USA Champs since 1996: - Southern Miss: 5 (including an additional divisional championship) - Houston: 2 - East Carolina: 2 - Tulsa: 2 - UCF: 2 I'm excluding Tulane, Louisville and Cincy, but you get the point, right? The team with the winningest record in recent C-USA history has a 63% admittance rate. http://collegeapps.about.com/od/collegeprofiles/p/university-of-southern-mississippi.htm The team that has won a 1/3 of the championships in the last 6 years, East Carolina (our future conference mates, BTW) has an acceptance rate of 70% http://collegeapps.about.com/od/collegeprofiles/p/east-carolina.htm Feel free to use whatever numbers you want, I WANT TO BE PROVEN WRONG. Those kind of acceptance rates aren't reflective of a mass of increased applications to the university, are they? I mean, I would think if they are accepting 70% of who applies, there's not a lot of basis for selection of 'better' students, is there? What were their numbers before doing well in football? But, you're not saying you actually want to emulate schools like Southern Miss and ECU, are you? You do realize the "Flutie Effect" only applies to universities that play on national television in highly publicized games, right? You're assuming a high grading high school student will want to attend USF and be a Bull because of the buzz generated by games he/she saw on a replay in the middle of the night, ESPN3 or NBCSports when all his friends are watching the games on ESPN and CBS, right? What else you got, man?

No, simply stating my opinion. I will admit to being consistent. I am not a troll. Committed USF and USF Athletics supporter. If you require proof, Hem, say the word.

You are right on target, EduBull. "Big Time" athletics at this point are a non-starter. It's just that some people refuse to see this. I agree, we need to start concentrating on Academics and from an athletic perspective, sports like soccer, baseball and softball - sports that we have been somewhat competitive in. I hate the idea of throwing good money after bad. I am beginning to think there is no point in spending millions upon millions of dollars building up a football program that will never get the respect of the 'big boys'. Please don't barrage me with, "How do you know that? USF is going to be a force." NO. IT. WONT. You wanna remain relevant in Florida? You wanna get high-ranking and motivated students to come to USF? Being an also-ran in football is not going to do it. Investing in academics, bringing in more grants and producing high-caliber STEM graduates (regardless of what JD Alexander has done) is the way to do it. We have a golden chance to reframe our priorities and if we don't do it now or soon, years from now we may be asking ourselves, "Why isn't USF a better school?".

I know your in TV somwhow, but ESPN is an evil empire that stands against everything good in this world. When they give us the CUSA, MWC, MAC weekday slots we will be associated with those conferences. If we are the main gig on NBC Sports, and for big enough games, NBC proper, we will be the NBE. I'd rather be a lesser known's prize posession, than a big boy's b**ch. 6 years will be the shortest TV contract, so while everyone else is locked in, we will able to negotiate a new contract. Totally agree! Great points!

I say the hell with it, let's go to NBC. I'm tired of us trying to be like everyone else. Seriously, if were being kicked out of our chair, I say let's embrace it and blaze our own trial. ESPN is just going to disparage us and make us feel worse about ourselves anyways.

How much you want to bet that contract will be voided if the schools that the B12 wanted to play as part of that contract, FSU and Clemson end up in their conference? It's been proven that most all contracts pertaining to college football stand up in court, right?

Well, for one, none of us has any influence on this at all. Not even a little. It's happening to our school, so we do have a vested interest, but we're spectators. Second, all we can do is comment and fuss about what we're seeing. Unless you're privy to information we the Chicken Littles are not, what are you so excited and hopeful for? Seems to me that the best case scenario involves the ACC needing to reload with us, but as others have said, then that would mean the ACC is as devalued as the BE was/is, and we'd still be on the outside looking in. Conference realignment isn't done, but that's only because the Power 4/5 haven't finished consolidating their power yet. In what reasonable reality do you see us being included in that consolidation of power? Which Power conference would want USF if you're really honest about it? I admit, I'm pessimistic. I'm damned pessimistic. I don't want to be. I'd LOVE to be jumping up and down and celebrating an invite to the B12 or anywhere else. But, I just don't see any possibility of that based on what's happened, why it appears to be happening, and on what we can try to predict will happen based on statements from the likes of the B1G, etc. about wanting to cut OOC games. It's bad news and more bad news, just about every day. Talking about it makes us Chicken Little's, I guess. To me, seeing what's happening and thinking we're going to come out smelling like roses is kind of, well, delusional. That's magical thinking right there. How do you know what the ACC would be thought of if reloaded? How does anyone know where we will end up? You have no clue, none of us do. Relax and take a xanax, there are some really good teams currently on the "outside looking in" and some crap teams on the inside looking out. Things will work themselves out one way or another. A 4/5 Conference 64 team league will include us, regardless of which one we'd end up in. Yes, you are pessamistic. Which is fine in itself, but these past couple hysteria-laced posts with you and Balto are a bit much. When this is all said and done (and I mean really done), if we are STILL on the outside looking in I will join you in being upset but with daily rumblings of the B1G, SEC, and Big12 expanding...it's crazy to be posting crap about closing up shop and crying about our current situation. Balto, it's nice that you WANT ANSWERS TO ALL YOUR QUESTIONS Nobody has them right now since our situation is so fluid. If/When the next wave strikes I seriously doubt we will still be in the "New Big East". Nobody is crying over at the Boise board. (except about their blue uni's/field) Good for Boise. I am sure they will enjoy making more than anyone else in their conference, giving them an advantage and still having their games on the WWL and being paid a bonus for it. For them, it must be nice to be the Kings of the Blue Castle. They are not complaining because they know **** well they got the best deal they were going to get. I've been quite forward, adamant and consistent with regards to my opinions about what is happening, but when you took me to task and I asked your thoughts, you declined to answer. It's easy to have an opinion when you don't have one. You dismiss mine, but offer none of your own other than we won't be in the NBE. I don't have time to play this all day, but you don't know how a reloaded ACC will be perceived? Can we agree that in order for the ACC to pick up USF, either FSU or Miami has to leave? Assuming that's the case, who does that leave left? Do you think if FSU bolts, Clemson and VT are going to stick around a conference with no other football 'brands'? It's been speculated elsewhere ad nauseum and I happen agree with the notion that if the ACC is raided to the degree which would necessitate USF getting the call-up the core football schools (FSU, Clemson, VT and possibly, Miami) will be gone. Take the 'power' schools out of the equation and what do you think the perception of the remaining schools would be? What teams of the remaining lot have consistently played in BCS bowls before the new system implementation? I refer to Tranghese's statement above, who is going to consistently play for the national championship every year? Who in the ACC by the time we get there is going to carry the league? Cincy? If you think it's us - we and the rest of the conference are going to be a laughingstock. Remember, Tranghese is the guy who was in the power position of which you referred to previously based a previous argument - not a 'chicken little'. Buying into your statement that USF is included in a 4/5 conference 64 team league, rest assured that wherever we land, it will be the weakest of the conferences. Answer me this, in the scenario that the ACC is raided and left without it's main brands, do you think ESPN or CBS will pay the NACC the same amount of money? Don't you think if the B1G or B12 nabbed the ACC's 'power' schools that those conferences would rework their contracts and eventually be paid MORE? Okay, so now we're making more money, great. But the conferences above us are making that much more now too, still maintaining the gap. Chasing the carrot, again. Again, FSU (and likely Miami) will end up in more prestigious conferences than us. Tell me how they don't. The perception will still remain that they are part of the "Big 3" and we are not. It doesn't make sense for conferences to double-up in states where eventually their network will be broadcast with one team present anyways, unless the B12 gets really ambitious and nabs FSU and Miami. Ultimately though, I think one of the two goes to the B1G and the other goes to the B12 eventually. B1G ain't taking us, B12 is going to get their pick of someone who 'moves the needle' and makes Bevo happy. SEC has UF. How does anyone know where we'll end up? Dude, there's no figuring out where we are going, the only place to go, if we go anywhere is the ACC. To imply otherwise suggests you are not paying attention. I'm sorry my opinions are a bit much for you. I think I'm beginning to see things a bit clearer since I've taken off my green and gold glasses.

I guess well see who's right, Hem. Part of being in a position of power is knowing where you stand and what the most likely outcome is. Sure, you could gamble with your position, cross your fingers and 'hope' for the best like Aresco did with trying to patch together a 'national conference' based on markets and not followings or tradition. How much of what he's done since taking over the NBE would you classify as a 'knee-jerk response"? Tulane? Or, you could be in a 'power position' like Marinatto and not look into the future at all. Or, you could be in a position of 'power' like Tranghese was and say after your tenure, ""The thing the Big East didn't have was a football leader -- a Florida, Alabama or USC -- a team that contended for the national championship every year or carried the league. It wasn't strong enough football-wise." Certainly, once the new system is in place, a NBE team will NEVER be in contention for a national championship. Once the teams in movement land where they are going, will the NBE be strong enough football wise then? Please explain to me how our conference's leaders in 'power positions' now are going to get us out of this. Tell me how as a leader of USF, you would interpret what is happening in college athletics right now and feel entirely optimistic about our schools future. I really want someone to tell me this. I keep reading posts like, "Winning Solves Everything", "Chicken Littles Are Everywhere" and "Things Are Going To Work Out", but no one says how. As I've said before, I WANT TO BE PROVEN WRONG. You say you don't know what's going to happen, but in your mind, where do you think we end up? Under what circumstances? How does it get better? You must have some thoughts to the contrary of what I've said if you are labeling them as 'knee-jerk reactions'. Again, I WANT TO BE PROVEN WRONG. Give me something else to think. Give me another perspective of how USF ends up playing with the 'Big Boys' in a conference or situation where we are earning comparable revenues to the other 'power' schools.

No, but we'd better get used to being in a violation conference, playing violation teams, having very little money to spend on athletics, and going to violation bowls. We're now minor league. Having said that, it can be a lot of fun. There's still plenty of pride to root for. Our alma mater still has a football team. But, if like many on here, your ambition for USF was to break into the big time and earn a spot with the big boys (to become, and I cringe, part of the "big 4 in Florida") . . .well, that's not going to happen anymore. The faster we accept what's happened and get used to being relegated to the minor league, the better. BUT, I don't think Tampa fans are going to embrace that. We won't be getting 50K average attendance. We won't be going to a marquee bowl, etc. And we're never going to be realizing TV revenues of $20-30 mill per year per team. The progress of USF football has been knocked back a decade and our climb is going to be a LOT slower now. But, since you make the brilliant suggestion to close up shop and cheer for women's softball, how do you really see all this playing out for USF? Where do you see hope in our current situation? Excellent post, Widerberg.

I think to a large degree, yes. As Winderberg said, 'it's done'. My understanding is we will receive a windfall from the majority of the BE teams leaving. Am I wrong? I think we should spend that money on athletics while we have it. I think it's prudent to abandon the idea of the indoor practice facility for now. We should pay off as much of the athletic debt as possible. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should Wollard receive a bonus or 'parting gift' of ANY SORT. He has made enough at USF with precious little, other than facilities to show for it. If I were being fair and truly forward thinking, I would invest the money we (may) have coming in as many of the team sports as possible, especially non-revenue sports. Let's allow the windfall to benefit everyone. Honestly, I would not invest that much more in football. It's a non-starter. Pay off what we bought, bring in a new AD and adjust to the new realities. Let CWT's contract run it's course and then re-evaluate. If he is successful with what he has and wants to stay, great! If not, move on. As I've said before, this is our chance to get off the treadmill and stop throwing good money after bad. USF can cut it's losses and move on. Continuing to 'chase the dream' will ultimately cost the university too much. I truly think those still 'chasing the dream' are not looking at the situation with open eyes and allowing pride and jealousy to cloud their opinion. I support USF Athletics and have given many thousands of dollars to various sports, but I think it's time to refocus our priorities and reposition ourselves as an academic institution. Honestly, I do feel disappointed and jealous of the 'Big 3' as well - it really bothers me. But really, seeing the realities as they are, I (and I think most of us) would much rather be an alumni of a Tulane-type institution, (once a member of the SEC for Christ's sake!) with excellent academics than a Southern Miss, our former conference mate in the Metro that was left behind and is now no better from an athletic or academic perspective than they were. Just my two-cents.

I don't know if schools will be booted as much as the truly 'powerful' schools will separate from the likes of Boston College, Indiana and Iowa State to form a 'made for TV super-duper' conference of 30-40 teams.

It sure hasn't helped Boise State - 2004: 11-1 2005: 9-3 (.750) 2006: 13-0 2007: 10-3 (.760) 2008: 12-1 2009: 14-0 2010: 12-1 2011: 12-1 2012: 11-2 So, if we have nearly a decade of .750 seasons and better against reduced competition, we will have the leverage to get a disproportionate contract from the NBE? "But we're in Florida, we have talent everywhere. We have a larger, football crazy population." Okay. The two conferences that make the most geographical sense to have a team in Florida already have THREE teams here. We know that expansion is based on adding new markets and television revenue. Winning won't solve everything. There has to be a seismic shift in the conference landscape in order to make a slot available. One or both of the Florida schools have to leave the ACC for us to have a shot in hell. Don't kid yourself, we don't "move the needle" for the B12 and won't ever be considered for the B1G. Then, once the ACC has been raided and again looked at UCONN (basketball, flagship school close to NYC and LOTS of TV's) and Cincy (basketball, new state with new TV's) then, USF would be considered. Hell, by then it might make sense for the ACC to concentrate on basketball, because if FSU leaves, rest assured Clemson will find a way out and then the ACC will lose most of their 'legitimacy' as a football conference anyways. Will the ACC then look to USF and/or UCF to rebuild it's football legacy? And let's not forget, in the now seemingly unlikely case FSU finds the exit, most of the 'old guard' (including the aforementioned Clemson) will bolt from the ACC as well, leaving us and others from the NBE to occupy the shell that was once the #5 conference. That's right, if the ACC collapses and we get the invite, the teams that we beat to separate ourselves from the pack will be coming with us. The 'Big Boys' will further solidify their position and we will still be on the outside looking in. Like I said last night, it will be the 'power 4' and everybody else. We don't have the brand, the history, the prestige or the fan support to expect to be anywhere else. Please explain to me an alternative scenario where if we 'just win' USF will be gifted an invite by a 'power' conference again. The conferences in question won't be nearly as desperate as the Big East was when it had to replace Miami. Maybe you see something I don't. Maybe you are operating under a 20-year plan. Honestly, I just don't see how we get back to the 'big boy' table. I want to be proven wrong.

And here is Jim Delany quoted from two days ago saying the B1G plans to go to 9 or 10 conference games. You better believe the other 'power' conferences will want to follow suit. I can't imagine that teams (who need high rankings to guarantee bowl slots) would want to use one of their only two remaining games to schedule someone lesser than them if they can schedule a marquee OOC game, fill the stadium and help the networks get ratings. Once again, there will be no room for us at the table, unless somehow, as has been suggested in many other places, in order to keep up with the B1G if they expand to 16, the B12 somehow nabs FSU and/or Miami and somehow, we fill one of those spots in the ACC. However, if that happens, that means the armageddon of conference realignment has happened and by the time USF ever got to sniff the ACC, ESPN and the rest of the media will be referring to the 'power 4' conferences and everyone else. Which I also anticipate meaning that if the other conferences ever expanded to those numbers, there is absolutely no way a team from the B1G, B12, SEC or Pac would ever play anyone in the ACC. The consortium would have all the power and schedule the games only amongst themselves. Forever chasing the carrot... http://www.mrsec.com/2013/02/big-ten-to-add-more-conference-games-is-this-another-lure-for-uva-gt-unc-and-duke/#more-267138

This is what I've been saying for a long time, Mike. For all intents and purposes, the changes that are coming are permanent. Once this 'new system' gets rolling, the GO5 will be eventually squeezed out of a slot-game altogether - mark my words. If we were truly being proactive, we would seriously start looking into starting our own playoffs and championship with the MAC, MWC and C-USA. And please don't tell me we "have to keep playing the Big Boys". Once this is finalized and the conferences are done expanding and signing agreements with one another ala the B1G and the Pac12, there will be no more opportunities. The system is being DESIGNED to keep us and the rest of the riff-raff out. Oh, and in the off-chance we DO schedule a team in a 'power conference' past 2017, by then the discrepancies between the haves and the have-nots will be so great, we would hardly stand a chance at all. We won't be a 'threat' by then - we'll be a tune-up game. I will keep saying this until I'm blue in the face - we need to be realistic. $2 mil per school is nothing. We need to forget about waiting for the scraps to fall from the big boy table and start looking at who's sitting at the kid's table with us.

The major issues, IMO, are two: 1. Fund raising. Once we were invited to the adult's table, we made a bunch of ongoing spending commitments predicated on an adult's level of income. If we go back to a small baby allowance, we'll need to find huge infusions of cash to cover those commitments. With our alumni base, that's going to be very difficult. 2. OOC games. Like Boise found, it will be difficult for us to schedule any decent OOC opponents even if we agree to 2-1, 3-1, or 1-n-dones. There's no upside if they win, and huge downside if they lose. This is all the more relevant now than it was for Boise because SOS is now ,part of the playoff system. We're stuck playing the ODU's and Georgia States of the world. While we're being squeezed from access to funds, we're simultaneously being squeezed from access to competition. Essentially we're back in FCS but still spending like we're in BCS. Yep. #2 is the killer. I do wonder honestly, if there is a way to cancel the construction of the indoor practice facility for the time being until we can get ourselves a little more stable, pay off Skip, etc...

I'm not going for it. If it's basketball only, then after next year, there will only be 7 members in the catholic league. That's about $3m per team just for bball. Granted, it will be the premium basketball league in the country, but the next best league, the A10, only gets about $5m for the whole friggin conference. "$5 million per year, split between 14 teams means each school will get a little more than $350,000 per year from the television contract." http://www.bigeastcoastbias.com/2012/10/3/3448664/new-atlantic-10-television-contract-shows-big-east-basketball-schools If the A10, only gets $350,000 per team, then NWIH the C7 gets $3,000,000 per team. The numbers are too far off. The C7 will not pull in 10x the advertising revenue of the A10. Just not gonna happen. No, I believe what NBC is bidding on is the combined football and basketball for the NBE, minus the C7. Which means we'll get about $2,000,000 per team once we go to 12 teams. Total Sucks to be us. You are right, it is $2 million per school for all sports (including football) ... but its just a starting point, not a contract. Negotiations will bring that money higher, I just hope we can get it up to about $5 million per (or at least what we currently get). Ugh. I sooooooo wanted to be wrong on this. Well, like I said, sucks to be us. But like you said, it's an opening bid. Don't see it going from 2m to 5m, though. 3.5 is far more likely than 5, and 3 is probably the most we can hope for. There is a solution... Just win,baby! Go Bulls!!!! It doesn't matter if we win. We'll never get credit for any out of conference games as of course, the 'Power 5' team just won't have their hearts in the game since they are playing USF. All winning the NBE does is allow the skeptics to say, 'Well, of course USF won. They play nobody. They sure couldn't win it when Rutgers, WVA and Louisville were in the conference." Besides, soon there will be no room left at the inn and there will be no 'elite' conference to go to anyways. All winning does is make us king of the misfits. USF is being seriously downgraded wether we like it or not. I'm surprised so many posters are still optimistic.

How about Bulls and Brahmans?