Tracer Bullet

MN was one that jumped out at me. Other than you, I've never met a MN fan outside the state. Even if they have that many fans, how many are watching cfb (or the gophers)? The Minneapolis/St. Paul area is a good sized market on its own merit, though, and the fans there are largely hockey/football fans. The Vikings are probably the primary draw, but U of Minnesota is the only decent game in town as colleges go. But its not a decent game. Those fans aren't cfb fans (or not gopher fans anyway).

MN was one that jumped out at me. Other than you, I've never met a MN fan outside the state. Even if they have that many fans, how many are watching cfb (or the gophers)?

Interesting article though I think it's a touch flawed. The conclusion - that the Big Ten and SEC are in their prime positions due to selectivity in expansion - is bordering on dumb. You take two conferences in the areas of the country where cfb is the most important (outside Texas) and full of several big schools and then you give one a contract with cbs and one it's own tv network. Which conferences will be most stable in an era where colleges have lost their minds chasing cfb $? The ACC and Big 12 are in just as much CFB-dominated areas of the country as the Big Ten and SEC. The Pac-10 expanded with two teams that really don't pull in much market share. They're really only in good shape if they land Texas and Oklahoma. After the Big East got raided for Miami and Virginia Tech, there just isn't much left there for football markets. Why is the ACC adding Pitt and Cuse and in a position to turn away WVU? Bc they made smart additions. Not bc they sat around. The Pac 12 was just looking to get to 12. They also look like the place most likely to add OU and Texas, if they move. How solid will they look then? And no, outside Texas, Big 12 country is not as cfb crazy as Big 10 country. The Big 12 is unstable due in large part to being dominated by 1 school. No school in the big 10 or sec will ever have that much power. I don't think it's that far off. The states of Texas and Oklahoma provided half of the original Big 12, and while they may not have the population numbers, they're very football crazy states. Nebraska is all football. Iowa St. is in a football state. Kansas really isn't a football state. I don't know what colorado is. Missouri either. But in general, the Big 12 was a football crazy footprint. It just doesn't have population numbers. Ohio, MI, Iowa, a lot of Pennsylvania, parts of Illinois and all of Wisconsin are football states. Maybe even football crazy. After adding PSU, you have 3 huge football schools in one conference. The Big 12/8 (and I don't even remember the 8) have a dominant program in Texas. Nebraska is a football state, to the extent it's a state, but their team jumped at the chance to join the big 10. Iowa St is in a football state dominated by another team's fans. I don't know what Colorado is, but they seem to have the W Coast mentality in that they aren't avid fans of any sport. The Big 10's advantage came from UM/OSU and having huge schools with avid fans (iowa is not highly populated but hawkeye fans travel, e.g.) and/or populated areas. Again, outside Texas, there aren't a lot of big markets in Big 12 country. Big 10 has Chicago, Detroit, Cincy, even Milwaukee, Indianapolis. Adding PSU was a no-brainer. You said yourself that the Big 12 allowed one program to run the show. That wasn't possible in the Big 10 bc there were too many other programs with big fan bases.

Why are Pitt and Cuse smart additions? Middling additions, at best. And of course the conference that adds Texas and Oklahoma is going to look a lot better. Until the Pac-12 does that, though, their additions were a little baffling from a market perspective. I didn't say Pitt and Cuse were smart additions. I said they're in a position to raid instead of being raided bc of smart additions (namely Miami and BC). They're still not safe, but I'd rather be the ACC than the Big 12 right now. I'm not sure the Pac 10 made great additions and maybe there were better ones to add. But their options are limited by geography.

I don't necessarily disagree that there isn't a better way to get numbers. But the answer then is maybe you can't draw the conclusions he wants to draw bc the data is flawed. It's less a question of who you route for than what teams buy tickets and grab eyeballs. I think it's interesting but I think it's too flawed to be more than that. To your bias question: I'd have picked those 5 teams for the top 5. I haven't thought about, nor do I care, about the order (I would guess Texas is too low at 5). But the key for this discussion seems to be in the teams in the 60s and 70s.

I'm not sure there's a better way to get data on college football interest across the country than what he's getting. Why do you question the numbers so much, because somehow Notre Dame isn't #1? They look pretty reasonable across the board to me. Silver is simply recognizing that the SEC and Big Ten are in good shape market-wise right now, so the only expansions that make sense for them would be to increase the average market, which adding PSU, Nebraska, and A&M do. Whereas the ACC adding Pitt and Syracuse, and the Pac-10 adding Colorado and Utah, do not. Thank you for assuming bias.

Interesting article though I think it's a touch flawed. The conclusion - that the Big Ten and SEC are in their prime positions due to selectivity in expansion - is bordering on dumb. You take two conferences in the areas of the country where cfb is the most important (outside Texas) and full of several big schools and then you give one a contract with cbs and one it's own tv network. Which conferences will be most stable in an era where colleges have lost their minds chasing cfb $? The ACC and Big 12 are in just as much CFB-dominated areas of the country as the Big Ten and SEC. The Pac-10 expanded with two teams that really don't pull in much market share. They're really only in good shape if they land Texas and Oklahoma. After the Big East got raided for Miami and Virginia Tech, there just isn't much left there for football markets. Why is the ACC adding Pitt and Cuse and in a position to turn away WVU? Bc they made smart additions. Not bc they sat around. The Pac 12 was just looking to get to 12. They also look like the place most likely to add OU and Texas, if they move. How solid will they look then? And no, outside Texas, Big 12 country is not as cfb crazy as Big 10 country. The Big 12 is unstable due in large part to being dominated by 1 school. No school in the big 10 or sec will ever have that much power.

I really question his numbers and the conclusions he's drawing from them.

Interesting article though I think it's a touch flawed. The conclusion - that the Big Ten and SEC are in their prime positions due to selectivity in expansion - is bordering on dumb. You take two conferences in the areas of the country where cfb is the most important (outside Texas) and full of several big schools and then you give one a contract with cbs and one it's own tv network. Which conferences will be most stable in an era where colleges have lost their minds chasing cfb $?

Crazy talk. Who would believe such a thing? Oh wait If the ACC's letting them keep the NBC/Versus contract, then obviously it's the right move. Nobody's said otherwise. It'd certainly be a dumb move for the ACC though, even with the fact that I consider ND the #1 prize in the conference shuffle. If ND becomes a full ACC member with no extra benefits than Swarbrick has failed in a way Kevin White couldn't even imagine. What? That's the craziest thing you've said in the last 2 days.

http://missouri.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1267857 Officially getting my hopes up. Bc you want to be in the SEC or bc any seat is better than none? I figure Missouri ends up in the bigx. Big Ten would be my first choice but I don't know how realistic it is right now. If SEC comes at us with an offer now, I would hope we'd take it instead of waiting around for a Big Ten offer that might not come. I'd probably feel differently in your shoes, but I feel like Missouri is the most obvious add for the bigx. I think I'd prefer to wait than join the sec where you'll get destroyed in fb and won't get the academic bump that you'd get if you were in the bigx.

http://missouri.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1267857 Officially getting my hopes up. Bc you want to be in the SEC or bc any seat is better than none? I figure Missouri ends up in the bigx.

BTW when conferences started getting shaky, Swarbrick added Maryland at FedEx and a 3 game series with Wake that starts with a game at Wake. Hey WF, you still have football right? Wanna play some games with us? How about next year? Ok. No, no, we'll come to your place first. We'll bring tens of thousands of people and maybe a few TV cameras. Think he tipped his hand at preferred conference?

Crazy talk. Who would believe such a thing? Oh wait

Ouch Their academic situation is very bad for a flagship institution. They use to have a very good experimental psychology program, but we've decided to stop funding rat labs in this country. I'd like to see ND in the B1G along with Pitt. Both have almost good enough academic standing. The also have natural geographic connections to the rest of the schools. Pitt/Penn State could become a great rivalry. Pathetic

Another rumor that they're eyeballing Tech. Or maybe they prefer MU to WVU, which makes sense to me. I think that's why TT doesn't like it. I'd blow a homeless man to get into the SEC right now. As long as we're in a real conference, I'll be happy. See Minnesota - things are looking up for you already.

it just takes a superior level of being "human", is that what your saying? I'm so confused right now. It takes an immense feeling of superiority or an indifference to the righteous indignation of those around you.

what? I'm showing empathy for your plight. Tarver's got himself on auto with little regard for where he fires, yet he isn't hitting anything. He's like imb with a leg cramp.

I still think it's all being driven by football media revenue. I don't know how the teams could come up with their own tourney and keep all these other schools out. maybe the Big Ten teams will just drop out like most of their alumni. Hit a little close to home, did I? its just that every time I see a homeless man, I think "there lies another tragic University of Indiana failure.." we're just not equipped socially to land in those posh places like Grand Rapids. And nothing can prepare one for the culture of GR.

I still think it's all being driven by football media revenue. I don't know how the teams could come up with their own tourney and keep all these other schools out. maybe the Big Ten teams will just drop out like most of their alumni. Hit a little close to home, did I? its just that every time I see a homeless man, I think "there lies another tragic University of Indiana failure.." we're just not equipped socially to land in those posh places like Grand Rapids. That's funny. Every time I see a homeless person, I think, at least he got as much as he could reasonably expect out of his big ten education.

I still think it's all being driven by football media revenue. I don't know how the teams could come up with their own tourney and keep all these other schools out. maybe the Big Ten teams will just drop out like most of their alumni. Hit a little close to home, did I? Coming from another Big Ten alum. Where's OMC or Vance? Let's compare academic stats with those goofball southern schools. ?

I still think it's all being driven by football media revenue. I don't know how the teams could come up with their own tourney and keep all these other schools out. It's not all about revenue. People here laughed at the idea of the Big Ten adding Iowa St or Kansas, but if there are three other 16 team conferences, do you really think that the Big Ten would keep themselves at 14, even if there is no team they could add that increases their per-member revenue? No, they would want to grow to 16 as well and exert just as much influence over the NCAA as the other 3 superconferences. Four superconferences would have tremendous influence over the NCAA and demand larger shares of the NCAA pie. Why? The big 12 didn't have more influence than the big ten or Pac 10 bc they had more schools. That makes no sense. The only reason youd need 4x16 is if it was going to be a closed universe. That seems unlikely.

It is a real possibility. Think about it, you have the 64 biggest and most influential athletic programs in the country spread evenly among 4 superconferences. It is not outside the realm of possibility that they secede from the NCAA and form their own association. Boy I think that's tough for them to so legally. You've got a bunch of schools with money and claims of antitrust issues. Plus, are those 64 schools only going to play each other and none of these has beens?

I still think it's all being driven by football media revenue. I don't know how the teams could come up with their own tourney and keep all these other schools out. maybe the Big Ten teams will just drop out like most of their alumni. Hit a little close to home, did I?

I still think it's all being driven by football media revenue. I don't know how the teams could come up with their own tourney and keep all these other schools out.