Florida Bull

Of course, FSU would probably like to block USF and UCF from AQ-level status. This statement could also have the benefit of convincing the Big 12 to not add any in-state rivals. And, it would hypothetically weaken a rival conference (of FSU's current home), by persuading the Big 12 to not improve-through expansion. But, USF and UCF to the Big 12 rumors very likely have no effect on FSU's actual decision. Florida State University should pursue its own interests and best conference fit-as opposed to just trying to hurt USF and UCF in a foolish and petty manner. Otherwise, it would just weaken itself, too.

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.

Actually, the empirical evidence, football attendance, supports just the opposite ... -------------------------------------------------------------- Attendance and fanbase size are separate measures.

... in the state of Florida. ---------------------------------------------------------------- There was a national survey that estimated USF and UCF as having larger football fanbases than NCSU. I know it might be hard to believe they are ahead of an ACC member. But, it actually makes sense, as Florida is about twice as populous as North Carolina and more football-oriented. If it's that survey that was posted on another thread in here, it was pretty unscientific .... I don't know if using football attendance records is a better indicator of fanbase but if it is, NCSU definitely has us there .... http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/Attendance/2010.pdf ... Pick any year and I don't think we ever out drew them. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The survey conducted by Nate Silver is probably not absolutely perfect, and may have placed a little too much emphasis on the immediate or short-term. The University of Alabama should have more fans than Auburn, at least by now. And, to be fair, I think the survey was conducted sometime around or during Cam Newton's championship season. But, it is probably as accurate of an estimate for fanbase size as we have. I trust its credibility than more than biased fans making their own speculations. And, it is probably 'more or less' correct. 2. Attendance numbers do not disprove fanbase sizes. I doubt NC State and similar teams actually have more fans and national interest than Miami, even if they get better attendance. USF's alumni base could be more spread out. The team is younger and has been less privileged with conference affiliation. The comparison wasn't between NCSU and UM, an obvious outlier. It was between NCSU and USF/UCF and your last sentence explains perfectly why the Wolfpack fanbase is probably larger than ours. USF is "younger and has been less privileged with conference affiliation" than NCSU."---------------------------------------------------------------- But, the empirical evidence indicates USF still has a larger fanbase-even if younger. And, Miami is a part of the discussion. People have advocated the SEC should automatically dismiss Miami while adding NC State immediately at least after UNC joins the Big 10, if not earlier.

... in the state of Florida.---------------------------------------------------------------- There was a national survey that estimated USF and UCF as having larger football fanbases than NCSU. I know it might be hard to believe they are ahead of an ACC member. But, it actually makes sense, as Florida is about twice as populous as North Carolina and more football-oriented. If it's that survey that was posted on another thread in here, it was pretty unscientific .... I don't know if using football attendance records is a better indicator of fanbase but if it is, NCSU definitely has us there .... http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/Attendance/2010.pdf ... Pick any year and I don't think we ever out drew them.---------------------------------------------------------------- The survey conducted by Nate Silver is probably not absolutely perfect, and may have placed a little too much emphasis on the immediate or short-term. The University of Alabama should have more fans than Auburn, at least by now. And, to be fair, I think the survey was conducted sometime around or during Cam Newton's championship season. But, it is probably as accurate of an estimate for fanbase size as we have. I trust its credibility than more than biased fans making their own speculations. And, it is probably 'more or less' correct. 2. Attendance numbers do not disprove fanbase sizes. I doubt NC State and similar teams actually have more fans and national interest than Miami, even if they get better attendance. USF's alumni base could be more spread out. The team is younger and has been less privileged with conference affiliation.

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.).

... in the state of Florida.---------------------------------------------------------------- There was a national survey that estimated USF and UCF as having larger football fanbases than NCSU. I know it might be hard to believe they are ahead of an ACC member. But, it actually makes sense, as Florida is about twice as populous as North Carolina and more football-oriented.

---------------------------------------------------------------- Ok. NC State is a potential SEC-type cultural school. But, why should they be a "no-brainer" over other universities with national brands, larger fanbases, better locations, and already better fit 'big football' if not SEC culture better?

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.

I also think NCSU is overrated. People have them being a "no-brainer" to the SEC, while "FSU and Miami are unworthy." But, we and UCF each have more college football fans than NC State.

The Catholic 7 is getting more because those schools have the coin of the realm in today's media world: Brand-name recognition. Sure, Bulls fans like us know that USF has been much better on the basketball court in recent years than say DePaul, but to the average college basketball fan, the kind likely to tune in for a game, DePaul is a name they have been aware of all their lives whereas USF doesn't ring a bell. All of the C7, even the bottom of the list, are brand names that have long college basketball histories. No, none of them save arguably Georgetown is in the true ultra-elite with the likes of Duke and Kentucky, but Duke and Kentucky fans know all about Georgetown. They know about Villanova, St Johns, DePaul and Marquette too. They are all "in the club", so to speak. And because ALL of the C7 have at least some name recognition, there are lots of airable matchups. Georgetown - Villanova is a good game, so is Villanova-St Johns, St Johns - Marquette, Marquette-Providence, etc. Kentucky and Duke fans will casually watch those games. But, the same is true for only 3-4 Big East teams (going forward). Basically, the only Big East programs with any value are UConn, Memphis, and Cincy basketball, and Temple as well. That's what NBC is paying for. And that value is diluted by lots of matchups with no-names. UConn-Cincy is worth broadcasting. But UConn - UCF or UConn - ECU? Not so much. And in football, NONE of the teams that will be in the Big East from 2014 forward move the brand-recognition needle at all. Thus, our football "inventory" is largely worthless. There is virtually no audience for UCF - Memphis football games. That's just where we stand right now. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. The Carltholic 7 get more respect than we do. Obviously, Georgetown is well-known, although much of their fame came with the help of Syracuse. St. John's and Villanova have great locations, and Marquette is playing very well. But, I am not so sure seven are big national brands. Marquette-Providence is a national rivalry? I doubt big Kentucky and Duke fans really care about small private schools they have no connection to; they would probably only watch like most other college basketball games outside of their conference of interest. Normally, probably if it is on and no other significant games are on. 2. Navy has a brand with some name recognition. UConn has one of the 50 largest college football fanbases. Got a link for that? Basketball I'd believe. Football, not a chance. --------------------------------------------------------------- http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/ According to the list, they have the 47th largest college football fanbase.

The Catholic 7 is getting more because those schools have the coin of the realm in today's media world: Brand-name recognition. Sure, Bulls fans like us know that USF has been much better on the basketball court in recent years than say DePaul, but to the average college basketball fan, the kind likely to tune in for a game, DePaul is a name they have been aware of all their lives whereas USF doesn't ring a bell. All of the C7, even the bottom of the list, are brand names that have long college basketball histories. No, none of them save arguably Georgetown is in the true ultra-elite with the likes of Duke and Kentucky, but Duke and Kentucky fans know all about Georgetown. They know about Villanova, St Johns, DePaul and Marquette too. They are all "in the club", so to speak. And because ALL of the C7 have at least some name recognition, there are lots of airable matchups. Georgetown - Villanova is a good game, so is Villanova-St Johns, St Johns - Marquette, Marquette-Providence, etc. Kentucky and Duke fans will casually watch those games. But, the same is true for only 3-4 Big East teams (going forward). Basically, the only Big East programs with any value are UConn, Memphis, and Cincy basketball, and Temple as well. That's what NBC is paying for. And that value is diluted by lots of matchups with no-names. UConn-Cincy is worth broadcasting. But UConn - UCF or UConn - ECU? Not so much. And in football, NONE of the teams that will be in the Big East from 2014 forward move the brand-recognition needle at all. Thus, our football "inventory" is largely worthless. There is virtually no audience for UCF - Memphis football games. That's just where we stand right now. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. The Carltholic 7 get more respect than we do. Obviously, Georgetown is well-known, although much of their fame came with the help of Syracuse. St. John's and Villanova have great locations, and Marquette is playing very well. But, I am not so sure seven are big national brands. Marquette-Providence is a national rivalry? I doubt big Kentucky and Duke fans really care about small private schools they have no connection to; they would probably only watch like most other college basketball games outside of their conference of interest. Normally, probably if it is on and no other significant games are on. 2. Navy has a brand with some name recognition. UConn has one of the 50 largest college football fanbases.

---------------------------------------------------------------- To reinforce your point. TCU also got in with its location. The Dallas-Ft. Worth media market is large and probably important for Oklahoma's exposure in the state of Texas. The Texas members also benefit with a presence in the area. Another likely factor is convenience. They did not have to wait 27 months or negotiate a more expensive exit fee.

Gotta consider the exposure and promotion we'll get from NBC, versus being Mickey Mouse's whipping boy ---------------------------------------------------------------- I think exposure would be better on ESPN. We need it, so future recruits and casual fans can watch games or probably even highlights of the conferences games.

The NCAA cannot conduct a proper investigation and give even token sanctions for Miami-perhaps the only obvious program since SMU where cheating is permanent and irreparable without the "Death Penalty." Yet, it is going to judge and rule against us for the color of the football team's uniforms?

Ironically, UConn and Cincinnati hurt themselves by publicly pursuing another conference.

---------------------------------------------------------------- Interesting idea, and I like the attempt of encouraging NFL talent to stay for a full four years. But, I suspect those who want to go to the NFL early under the status quo, still would. They see it as a promotion, and probably still would.

---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Technically, the direct costs of attending a university are tuition, books, and fees for services. Of course, those should be covered. Assuming they are, then what else directly pertains to the cost of enrollment? Football related expenses include food, healthcare, and arguably travel. I believe those are taken care of, as well. While not a direct cost of enrollment and/or football, I think free housing is or at least should be provided. I also would not mind modest stipends for a little extra spending money. If the benefits I mentioned-possibly including stipends-are paid for, then what else is required for enrollment? 2. As long as USF is in the Big East, with tv revenue under $2 million a year, I am not so sure it can afford to pay all of its athletes $100,000+ per year. Everyone continues to say USF would pay...alone. The current lawsuit includes EA Sports and the Collegiate Incensing Company which does more that license hats and T-Shirts but also negotiate bowl deals. http://www.clc.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- So, players should profit from the school's logo? If it is only for their "likeness," then you would have to determine the value of information directly and not coincidentally pertaining to them-separating it from the value entailed by the university's brand. And, there is a possibility, the companies possibly using their likeness now, could find loopholes or adapt to eliminate their standing in a lawsuit for damages.

---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Technically, the direct costs of attending a university are tuition, books, and fees for services. Of course, those should be covered. Assuming they are, then what else directly pertains to the cost of enrollment? Football related expenses include food, healthcare, and arguably travel. I believe those are taken care of, as well. While not a direct cost of enrollment and/or football, I think free housing is or at least should be provided. I also would not mind modest stipends for a little extra spending money. If the benefits I mentioned-possibly including stipends-are paid for, then what else is required for enrollment? 2. As long as USF is in the Big East, with tv revenue under $2 million a year, I am not so sure it can afford to pay all of its athletes $100,000+ per year. 3. How does an athletic scholarship cause poverty? I know there could be post-college health problems from playing sports. But, those would logically be dealt with by extended healthcare coverage or ending a particular sport. Other than possibly that, how does an opportunity to receive an athletic scholarship cause poverty? If anything, It could be used as an argument against offering athletic scholarships and/or sports programs in the first place.

---------------------------------------------------------------- I do not like the deal, either. But, what other options-than the Big East-do we have?

[comment in next post.]

--------------------------------------------------------------- That's depressing! Not just less than we make now, but less than $2 million during a period of tv contract inflation. NBC Sports Network provides little exposure. And, we are stuck in it for 6 years.

(Correction) In this economy, a used car salesman is actually not a bad job. I am not sure what his connections were or even the importance of his name recognition was for getting the job. But, college football players voluntarily join their teams, as they provide them with better opportunities than other options would.

---------------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps it is wishful thinking, I do not know. But, I think the Power 5 Conferences are more likely to just form a new division for football and possibly basketball than completely separate from the NCAA. It provides stability and makes a political backlash less likely. It similarly makes it less likely they will have fo pay players. Getting to pay players may hurt competition. But, as whole universities with academic goals too, they would empirically suffer as well. The NCAA also already provides the infrastructure for an inter-collegiate association, and with costs probably spread out with the help of the 'have-nots.' Regarding who is included in a split: I doubt the Power 5 include the whole Catholic 7. If USF, Cincinnati, and UConn are not good enough, I suspect the C7 are not either-especially with its 'dead weight' included. I can imagine a long-shot possible exception where Georgetown or Villanova is invited to the ACC to complement Notre Dame, though.

No one would be using your likeness while you where in school to line their pockets with billions. Apples and oranges. Many of these players don't go to the NFL. IF you actual read one of the articles, the school he attended got millions for him winning the Heisman and now he sells used cars.---------------------------------------------------------------- In this economy, a used car salesman is actually not a bad job. I am not sure what is connections were or even the importance of his name recognition was for getting the job. But, college football players voluntarily join their teams, as they provide them with better opportunities than other options would.