Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[MMW]

1 hour ago, Apis Bull said:

That's not the point.  Well, at least not my point.  My point is that you can't earn your way to the top conferences of college football.  A group of schools, including those that have not performed as well as we have decide whether they want you in their club or not and it has very little to do with on the field results.

They earned that by being founding members decades before USF was even a school.  They have built up relationships and rivalries that drive attendance and tradition most within driving distance.

Other than on ESPN or on a chat board, who would be talking about and talking smack over Kansas or ISU vs USF?  Who would care?  Nobody because we are not national teams.

I think it would be great if we could play in an regional Florida league.  It would be great for attendance and possibly even recruiting as high school kids can continue playing each other at the next level.  Would anyone care at the national level?  Nope.  But it would be a better fan experience.

[CousinRicky]

2 hours ago, JTrue said:

It almost seems like people with lots of money and access to even more money are actively trying to keep others from the same...

...this must just be a sports thing.

That there is funny stuff.  

[Bear]

2 hours ago, Apis Bull said:

That's not the point.  Well, at least not my point.  My point is that you can't earn your way to the top conferences of college football.  A group of schools, including those that have not performed as well as we have decide whether they want you in their club or not and it has very little to do with on the field results.

Rutgers is a prime example

[MMW]

16 minutes ago, Bear said:

Rutgers is a prime example

How are we any better that Rutgers?  They are benefiting from their location and market size just like a lot of people around here are proposing we do.  

If we are asking to be placed in a league based of on the field results our wish has been granted.   

Rutgers has better academics and location that we do. 

For what it is worth they might be a sucky history but only one team can say they won the  first college football game ever played about 150 years ago.

Edited June 6, 2018 by MMW

[Apis Bull]

MMW, everyone knows why the teams that are in the P5 are there and a lot of them is not because of what they've done on the field.  I'll state my point once more.  Even if we went 13-0 for five straight years, there is no guarantee that we would be invited to a P5 conference.  It might be likely, but not for sure.  There are no define metrics that we, or any other G5 for that matter, can satisfy that would get us into a P5 conference.  I'm not saying that we deserve to be in a P5 conference based on our on-field results at the moment, just that it wouldn't matter anyway.

[TheUpperHand]

49 minutes ago, MMW said:

only one team can say they won the  first college football game ever played about 150 years ago.

Give UCF time, buddy. Give UCF time.

[MMW]

47 minutes ago, Apis Bull said:

MMW, everyone knows why the teams that are in the P5 are there and a lot of them is not because of what they've done on the field.  I'll state my point once more.  Even if we went 13-0 for five straight years, there is no guarantee that we would be invited to a P5 conference.  It might be likely, but not for sure.  There are no define metrics that we, or any other G5 for that matter, can satisfy that would get us into a P5 conference.  I'm not saying that we deserve to be in a P5 conference based on our on-field results at the moment, just that it wouldn't matter anyway.

I think that is because there are many metrics that need to be satisfied and we have some covered but not all.  Some of these programs were grandfathered in and that is a metric as well.

After nearly 2000 pages we all know them:

• Attendance
• Market Size
• Geographic location (proximity to rivals or other league members)
• Academics
• Student body size/Alumni base
• Tradition
• Facilitates (including OCS)

Notice I didn't add on the field performance which would be why Boise was never asked and Rutgers was.  Boise had the performance but few, if any, of the others.  So I guess we agree.

We are also hindered by the directional school stigma.  It could possibly be a deal breaker for some leagues.

To those who say that we have better attendance that a few grandfathered bottom feeders, I would say that is meaningless.

 

Edited June 6, 2018 by MMW

[NewEnglandBull]

15 minutes ago, MMW said:

I think that is because there are many metrics that need to be satisfied and we have some covered but not all.  Some of these programs were grandfathered in and that is a metric as well.

After nearly 2000 pages we all know them:

• Attendance
• Market Size
• Geographic location (proximity to rivals or other league members)
• Academics
• Student body size/Alumni base
• Tradition
• Facilitates (including OCS)

Notice I didn't add on the field performance which would be why Boise was never asked and Rutgers was.  Boise had the performance but few, if any, of the others.  So I guess we agree.

We are also hindered by the directional school stigma.  It could possibly be a deal breaker for some leagues.

To those who say that we have better attendance that a few grandfathered bottom feeders, I would say that is meaningless.

 

Performance is zero sum. If you have it it does not hurt but if you don’t it does. Bad performance would be tied attendance, tradition, and facilities. 

Edited June 6, 2018 by NewEnglandBull

[JTrue]

We're all in agreement, though...the #1 thing we need to get into the P5 is an OCS, right?

[MMW]

Just now, JTrue said:

We're all in agreement, though...the #1 thing we need to get into the P5 is an OCS, right?

Well at least it would give us a place of our own to sit while we're waiting.