Conference realignment "Rumors" "tweets" "etc"

[BullsFanInTX]

3 minutes ago, puc86 said:

Current football winning percentage has never once had anything to do with anyone being selected by any conference for expansion. FACTS.

Name one thing I said that is incorrect.  Football success does have a lot to do with conference expansion.  Why else do you think, Boise State, for example was added to MWC and not New Mexico State.  Of course there are other factors.  No one is disputing that.  But having a successful, winning program helps a lot. 

[bulloni]

USF being in a P5 conference before can do us favors too in a "look and see" way. When in a conference against WVU level schools we averaged 50k attendance for 3 straight seasons. Now the city we play in has grown since then. Also we were a 10 year old football program then, now we have double the alumni that went to USF games as a student.

[puc86]

2 minutes ago, BullsFanInTX said:

Name one thing I said that is incorrect.  Football success does have a lot to do with conference expansion.  Why else do you think, Boise State, for example was added to MWC and not New Mexico State.  Of course there are other factors.  No one is disputing that.  But having a successful, winning program helps a lot. 

Why was Boise left out when they were more successful than every team called up at the moment? What did Pitt and Syracuse ( getting beat like a drum by us before and after the call up) do in the decades leading up to joining the ACC accomplish these merited a call up? What did Rutgers accomplish in a century of football that gave them a B10 CV? Can team X get us more dollars a piece than we get without them and will they not be too offensive academically to our Presidents are the only two things that get considered. Sometimes making money can be enhanced by winning but if its not required and has no merit as a stand alone data point. If anything I would think a losing Texas making huge amount of money is more desirable to most in the SEC than if they were actually winning at the rate of their value.

[BullsFanInTX]

6 minutes ago, puc86 said:

Why was Boise left out when they were more successful than every team called up at the moment? What did Pitt and Syracuse ( getting beat like a drum by us before and after the call up) do in the decades leading up to joining the ACC accomplish these merited a call up? What did Rutgers accomplish in a century of football that gave them a B10 CV? Can team X get us more dollars a piece than we get without them and will they not be too offensive academically to our Presidents are the only two things that get considered. Sometimes making money can be enhanced by winning but if its not required and has no merit as a stand alone data point. If anything I would think a losing Texas making huge amount of money is more desirable to most in the SEC than if they were actually winning at the rate of their value.

I said it was one of the factors.  And Rutgers actually had some decent years under Schiano fairly recently to being added.  As far as Syracuse and Pitt, they have a lot of wins in their program history.  Of course there are other issues, I never denied that, I just said that winning helps your perception and elevates you.  That is absolutely correct.  Is it the only factor, of course not.

[puc86]

6 minutes ago, BullsFanInTX said:

I said it was one of the factors.  And Rutgers actually had some decent years under Schiano fairly recently to being added.  As far as Syracuse and Pitt, they have a lot of wins in their program history.  Of course there are other issues, I never denied that, I just said that winning helps your perception and elevates you.  That is absolutely correct.  Is it the only factor, of course not.

You said UCF will get called up because they have been winning more than us recently, the reasons @BullyPulpit stated for why it’s not as cut and dry as you described seem to be more in line with what actually has decided realignment in the past more so than recent winning. Is it impossible that it plays a role this time? I guess there is a first time for everything but I wouldn’t be betting on it.

Edited July 27, 2021 by puc86

[BullyPulpit]

2 minutes ago, BullsFanInTX said:

I said it was one of the factors.  And Rutgers actually had some decent years under Schiano fairly recently to being added.  As far as Syracuse and Pitt, they have a lot of wins in their program history.  Of course there are other issues, I never denied that, I just said that winning helps your perception and elevates you.  That is absolutely correct.  Is it the only factor, of course not.

You are going to try to justify Rutgers addition to the B1G by 3 "good" seasons in the Big East? Seriously. Rutgers was added because they brought the New York media market as the B1G was trying to get cable providers to carry the B1G Network AND because they were members of the AAU and fit academically. They had literally no on-field success to point to. Since 1980 they finished ranked in the top 25 exactly 1 time. 

Pitt and Syracuse's "winning" tradition ended in 1981. Since 1990 they have finished ranked in the top 25 precisely 3 times, and never since joining the ACC. Syracuse had a little bit more recent run of success, but since 1999 they finished ranked precisely 2 times. Those programs were added to the ACC because they were palatable and would help to bring about the end of the Big East, which was always ESPN's goal. They conspired with the network and both of them got what they deserve, as their programs are completely irrelevant. 

[Mission9]

28 minutes ago, BullsFanInTX said:

Name one thing I said that is incorrect.  Football success does have a lot to do with conference expansion.  Why else do you think, Boise State, for example was added to MWC and not New Mexico State.  Of course there are other factors.  No one is disputing that.  But having a successful, winning program helps a lot. 

Without doing any research or nit picking I can name a couple.  USF did not "leave UCF behind" when they joined the Big East as UCF was in the MAC beforehand.  As far as winning goes, one only needs to look at the all time record of USF football vs Syracuse to know what you say is not necessarily true.  No one with a rational point of view would object that Syracuse is a more recognized name and deserved the promotion.   It is more about the "name brand" (which of course was built by past winning) than it does with more recent on the field success. 

[Mission9]

I think most of us know it is all about the name brand and not about recent on field success.  That said, it is unfortunate that this chaos once again is occuring while we have  a putrid team.  I think we would all feel better and less anxious if we were coming off a 10-2 season but I doubt it would factor in as much as what the powers that be think the program can bring to the table as a whole in the future. 

 

[BullsFanInTX]

39 minutes ago, Mission9 said:

Without doing any research or nit picking I can name a couple.  USF did not "leave UCF behind" when they joined the Big East as UCF was in the MAC beforehand.  As far as winning goes, one only needs to look at the all time record of USF football vs Syracuse to know what you say is not necessarily true.  No one with a rational point of view would object that Syracuse is a more recognized name and deserved the promotion.   It is more about the "name brand" (which of course was built by past winning) than it does with more recent on the field success. 

OK what I should have said was USF blocked UCF for a few years of getting in the Big East.  Which in retrospect, was shortsighted.  They should have been added ASAP.

If UCF gets an invite, do you think they are interested in helping USF...doubt it.  Just as USF wasn't interested in helping UCF (until the Big East crumbled).

[puc86]

1 minute ago, BullsFanInTX said:

OK what I should have said was USF blocked UCF for a few years of getting in the Big East.  Which in retrospect, was shortsighted.  They should have been added ASAP.

If UCF gets an invite, do you think they are interested in helping USF...doubt it.  Just as USF wasn't interested in helping UCF (until the Big East crumbled).

That’s what you learn from that parable?