Your
account has been migrated to the upgraded servers.
Here are the few steps you need to take:
OPTION
1:
If the email address you have on the old forum is one
you have access to, use the "lost
password" feature in the NEW FORUM and a new
password will be sent to you.
OPTION
2:
If you don't have access to the email address you registered
with on the old forum, but can still login, just follow
these steps:
STEP
1: Check your PM on THIS FORUM
for your NEW PASSWORD
STEP
3:
Modify your profile with a new password you will remember
**
If you have any problems getting your new password via
the automated PM, feel free to PM me via the old forum
here (or email)
and I will send you your updated password.
Thats'
it, that easy. Be sure to review your avatar and sig
settings. Most information should have made it with
the transfer, but might need some minor revisions. This
forum will remain online until Jan 1st but no new posts
will be added.
Joined: May 2004 Gender: Male Posts: 12 Location: Laramie, WY -- God's Country
Re: Grid Updates and Discussion Board « Reply #2 on Apr 12, 2007, 8:18am »
Hello, I've read the boards here off and on for years. I think you can finally change Wyoming on your Grid. We've more than met "new I-A criteria" for a few years, and should be upgraded to stable. Thanks.
Re: Grid Updates and Discussion Board « Reply #3 on Nov 26, 2007, 1:09am »
Quinn:
Now that the Missouri Valley Confernce is taking a look at renaming the Gateway, do you think the MVC will add North Dakota State and South Dakota State for all other sports and therefore have a seven member league for football? By adding SD and ND State, this would result in a 12 team league for MVC Basketball? Do you think that is what the MVC has in mind by moving to rename the Gateway?
Re: Grid Updates and Discussion Board « Reply #4 on Nov 26, 2007, 3:42pm »
I'm no Quinn, but I think I know the answer to this one....
MVC expansion is not imminent. The name change is primarily for marketing purposes. The MVC office already runs the Gateway and Pioneer Conferneces, so with 5 of the 9 Gateway members being MVC members, this name change is not TOO hard to swing.
The rumor is that it is JUST A NAME CHANGE ! The structure of the conference will remain the same.... The Gateway becomes the Missouri Valley Football Conference. The 4 non-MVC members do not become affiliate members of the MVC. Rather the MVFC is stand-alone (although still managed out of the MVC office).
Crystal Ball.... Long term.... I see South Dakota and North Dakota joining SDSU and NDSU in the Summit Conference. If the Gateway / MVFC would need to expand down the road (due to something like Youngstown State going to the MAC, South Dakota / North Dakota would garner serious attention as the next invitees for football. In such a scenario, then the MVFC might end up consisting of 5 MVC schools and 5 Summit Schools.
It's not unreasonable to ask about the likelihood of NDSU / SDSU getting invited to the MVC, but the other schools might view a 12-school arrangement as bloated, and there seems to be bent toward urban schools. No offense, but Fargo and Brookings are perhaps "urban" (but on the smallish side), and being located northwest of the other MVC schools might pose a travel challenge. This is not me bashing the Dakota schools, I am simply stating the issues that the MVC schools would have with such an expansion....
Re: Grid Updates and Discussion Board « Reply #5 on Nov 28, 2007, 4:44pm »
Hey Quinn, I love your grid, but I'd like to make some suggestions for updates.
I think Rutgers has as good of a shot at big 10 membership as Syracuse if not better as it has the only legit hold on football attention in the #1 TV amrket in America and has a better shot than Pittsburg. Acedemically all 3 schools are at a similar level. At minimum, all 3 shools should be listed the same, but personally, I'd rank Rutgers as the Big 10's third pick behind big 10 pipedreams ND and Texas.
I think you are being a little blind about Baylor and the big 12. UT & A&M have a general distaste for private schools from the last days of the SWC when all the private schools were sucking their football teats. The ONLY reason Baylor and Tech are in the Big 12 is because AT THE TIME, two very loyal alumni served in positions of power in the state legislature and they made a pact to get this done. Dumping Baylor is the key to UT & A&M getting a divorce from this marriage of convenience. Baylor is non-competitive. That doesn't sell in Texas. If there was a movement to dump them from the conference, there would not be support from Tech to block it. More to the point the alumni of other private schools would probably bless it. And don't think that means TCU gets in. TCU cut their throats joining the MWC. They are rarely on TV and recruiting is suffering. They are a small enrollment private which means on their own they aren't forcing their way in. Arkansas has more alumni in the metroplex and if UT & A&M wanted to keep the Big 12 alive, they would probably try to steal Arkansas --- but even that has problems. Although Arkansas alumni would probably prefer being in a conference with UT vs. the SEC, the SEC probably pays more per team than the Big 12.
Anyhow, freedom starts with dumping Baylor.
Buried in the bloat of the big 12 is the conference UT really wants to be in --- a conglomerate of public flagships who (with Arkansas) would be exceeded only by the Big 10 as a IA conference. Getting to that point starts by dumping Baylor.
There was a published report that UT & Oklahoma ADs?, presidents? had a secret meeting to discuss starting a new conference a few years ago. I have no doubt this meeting occurred. OU and UT want to drive the conference. Nebraska and the Northern schools do not accept that. The reality is there would have to be a lot of work to make this happen. If Nebraska is resurgent and tries to drive the conference again, I see the chances of a break increasing.
Since Arkansas left UT has coveted being in a top tier conference. At the time of the fall of the SWC the easiest course to that was to quickly jump to the PAC 10 or Big 10 before the legislature stopped them. Today, A&M would block UT going anywhere without them. UT understands that and frankly would be foolish not to take A&M with them. Any way you slice it, the Big 12 is a second tier conference. Iowa St. is not a Big 10 candidate. That clearly defines it. This is a marriage of convenience and while it is reasonably profitable, UT & A&M could probably generate about a 30-40% larger TV share per school in a smaller conference of flagships of their making that didn't have any techs or states in it. That tension has always been bubbling under the surface of the Big 12's venier of success.
I think the scholars not athletes didn't save rice in the SWC and won't save Baylor in the Big 12. I think at minimum the grid should acknowledge they are non-competitive and competing at the whim of the rest of the conference.
I think UT & OU should be listed as "Stable, but in an ongoing power struggle with Nebraska and the northern school for the direction of the conference. Rumored to have had discussions of starting their own conference."
I think A&M, OU, and probably Colorado should be listed as "will be in the same conference as UT."
I think Missou should be listed as "barring a defection to the Big 10, will be in the same conference as UT."
Kansas and Nebraska I would list as "Very Happy with the Big 12, but if UT & OU started a scaled down conference, would join."
For now, dumping Baylor should be the goal #1 for any UT Alumni who thinks UT should be in a tier 1 conference and beleives they are not. I think it is for a number of higher up alumni.
If Nebraska starts winning, the stability of the Big 12 will be questionable. UT thinks it should be an aristocracy. Nebraska thinks it should be a democracy with them the elected president. That is trouble long term.
The big 12 will not expand to 14 because conference finances do not make that a reasonable course of action unless you are adding a powerhouse. The best the big 12 could do would be BYU or Utah, and travel costs alone make that iffy. NM and Memphis aren't bad candidates, but their academics would be shuned by UT. Bottom line is that neither scenario is going to add to the coffers. I think you can eliminate those scenarios.
CUSA - I think the Magnolia Conference, not a SWC will come into being as soon as Baylor is kicked out of the Big 12. but I can understand both possibilities being listed. The MWC won't chase the Waco market meaning that the bears will be looked at by CUSA. CUSA is at 12 and won't go to 14. The eastern schools don't like the travel expenses of the current CUSA, aren't thrilled about the private schools anyway, and aren't going to vote to split the pie further. At this point the privates will bolt and join Baylor to create the long thought about Magnolia conference. I think TCU at that point will be amenable to rejoining after years of dwindling success and mounting expenses in the MWC when it becomes clear their is no institutional, legislative, or public support for the frogs to join the Big 12.
Anyway, I'd list the 4 privates in CUSA as possiblities to start their own conference of privates.
I think the CUSA is very bipolar right now and could easily split into CUSA and SWC (today) or CUSA, Magnolia, and SWC in 10 years if Texas State and UTSA go to IA.
I had read that ECU might bolt on CUSA to be an Indy. I read they were unhappy with travel to Texas and think admission to the big East is possible with a good showing as an indy. I don't see that at all, but apparently some people out there do. If that happens, TCU might return. The MWC has not become a BCS conference. Their football momentum is lost. They are not profiting from the move to the MWC. TCU would probably have the votes edge for readmission at that point with 6 texas schools.
Troy would be another possible replacement for ECU as would UNT, App. State, FIU, and FAU.
I think Ohio University and Miami University should be mentioned as possiblilities in a new Big East. They both have good long term prospects and are top acedemic schools. I think Buffalo should be listed as a longshot, but another potential target for the same reason and the fact that the pro Bills may move.
I doubt the same group that ran off Temple will rerecruit them for the new Big East. I think they should be listed as a longshot.
I think you are far too generous to the MWC schools. No way is Air Force getting an invite to the PAC 10 ever if a reeling Big East didn't offer a slot to Army or Navy. Same for UNM. I think if the state legislature brought pressure on the Pac 10 to admit a school, it would be a UC system university like UC-Davis as they are much better academically and as such have more powerful alumni.
I'd list BYU as a long shot with Utah only, CSU with Colorado only, UNLV with Reno only, and Utah having the best shot at getting in if the Pac 10 expands with either BYU or Colorado.
The MWC is not a BCS conference. There are no candidates out there you could add to the hodgepodge of media markets that comprise the MWC to make it a BCS conference. If TCU joining didn't do it, it won't happen. That reality has to be sitting in at TCU. I'd list TCU as a possible mutineer who may escape back to CUSA if a slot opens.
Wyoming's attendance is in the 18-20k range now. The NCAA is slowly ranmping up the minimum attendance to 17K last I looked, but removing Wyoming from IA would hurt the MWC's Denver viewership which is a big part of their financial success. It could destablize the top non-BCS conference, so I am going to say Wyoming is safe and stable.
Do you really think ASU and Arizona might leave the Pac 10 for the Big 12? I have a hard time buying that. I know you just stay they would listen, but that in itself is probably overstating.
I could also see CUSA without the texas schools considering adding teams in a football/basket league ala old CUSA. Likely targets would be ULR, UNO, S. Alabama, Old Dominion, UNF, Georgia State, VCU, George Mason.
La Tech would be a possible SWC school as would ULL.
Boise might actually get in as a replacement #9 in the MWC if TCU bolts. That is another possibilty. Nevada as well.
Quinn CollegeSportsInfo.com Admin member is offline
CollegeSportsInfo.com Admin
Joined: Oct 2002 Gender: Male Posts: 848
Re: Grid Updates and Discussion Board « Reply #6 on Nov 28, 2007, 5:46pm »
All good points. North Dakota and South Dakota seem destined for the Summit. I'm not sure that the MVC has any need to expand right now. Remember, for basketball, 9 teams is ideal since it allows each team to play a conference home-and-home. Conferences larger than that 9 do so because of TV contracts and entrance into new and larger Tv markets. the Dakota schools don't do much in that sense...although the quality of play at the Dakota state schools has been great.
As for big picture and the grid, let's all remember this: the NCAA won't allow any new conferences to be created at this time. Why? unless there is tournament expansion, there won't be any new automatic bids. If and when the NCAA expands the tourney, that will change and you might see the BE split and possibly something new for the desperate programs looking for a home.
Re: Grid Updates and Discussion Board « Reply #7 on Dec 5, 2007, 11:24pm »
Shouldn't Georgia Southern and Texas State University be updated with the recent announcements that they will upgrade to Division 1 FBS? The most likely home would appear to be the Sunbelt?
Re: Grid Updates and Discussion Board « Reply #8 on Dec 6, 2007, 1:28am »
An update -
Yesterday it was announced that Campbell of the A-Sun (they are starting up a football program initially as FCS non-scholarship) will be playing FB in the Pioneer league, starting in 2008.
MAAC FB is dead.... no word yet on what the two remaining teams (Marist, Iona) plan to do... they had been in discussions about possibly joing the Pioneer League as well. They may also be considering: 1) dropping football 2) going independent FCS for the immediate future 3) joining a different conference for FB or all sports, such as the NEC or Patriot.
The NEC just expanded to 12 members (adding Bryant) so perhaps an NEC FB-only affiliation is possible.
The Patriot League is pondering their concept over the next few months. Whether to go full (63) FB scholarships or remain "need-based aid" only. If they decide to go to FB scholarships, that might mean an expansion involving Fordham for all sports, perhaps VMI (to play Army / Navy), or some other like-minded "elite" institiution.
Re: Grid Updates and Discussion Board « Reply #9 on Dec 13, 2007, 8:48pm »
Southland Conference...
Grid need to update UTSA annoucing football, with plans to go FBS by 2012.
Lamar is returning football. Texas st system already approved $17 million. Student vote in January, expecting to pass easily. Texas st system formal vote in Febuary. Coach announced after the Texas st system vote. Coach may already have been picked. Big name person was seen playing Golf with Billy Tubbs last month. Tubbs have stated many times I-AA(FCS) will not be successful in the Beaumont market. So the plan is FBS. The plan is to mirror UTSA.
Re: Grid Updates and Discussion Board « Reply #11 on Jan 27, 2008, 12:13am »
Lamar University students go to the polls Wednesday and Thursday to vote on whether they will approve a raise in fees to fund a football program. If the students approve, and the Board of Regents signs off on football at a February meeting, LU athletic director Bill Tubbs will immediately launch a search for a coach to build a program from scratch. Tubbs, who says he already has some names of some coaches he thinks might be interested, plans to seek input from the likes of Jimmy Johnson and Barry Switzer.
Re: Grid Updates and Discussion Board « Reply #12 on Jan 30, 2008, 6:20pm »
One minor correction for the grid is that Delta State is located in Cleveland, Mississippi, not Louisiana.
Also, Jacksonville State has announced plans to move up to FBS. They, like Texas State, tried to get in before the moratorium but were denied by the NCAA.
Re: Grid Updates and Discussion Board « Reply #13 on Jan 31, 2008, 12:59pm »
They are celebrating on the Lamar forum.
"January 31, 2008 - 10:58AM
Lamar University students have voted in favor of paying an athletic fee to help fund the return of a football program after about 20 years, with 79% voting 'yes.'
LU released the results shortly before 11 a.m. (79%) voted 'yes' and (21%) voted 'no.'
Students voted Tuesday and Wednesday on whether to pay an athletic fee of $8.75 per credit hour to help fund a football program. The fee would be $4.50 during summer sessions.
The fees would take effect in 2009 and the goal is to play ball in 2010. Students would receive free passes to football games for the following four seasons.
LU President Dr. Jimmy Simmons says the return of football would also require substantial private donations and approval from the Texas State University System board of regents, but the student vote is a major first step.
The ballot boxes were taken to the Lamar University Police Department after voting ended Wednesday.
Thursday morning, the boxes were taken to the Cherry Engineering Building where scanning machines began automatically counting the ballots. They were checked to ensure proper student registration information.
Re: Grid Updates and Discussion Board « Reply #16 on Jun 21, 2008, 12:59pm »
I think that if the Big 12 wanted to do a switch...they would dump BU and Tech and add Arkansas and TCU. Better travel to both schools and the apple cart would not be too upset in such a move.
Re: Grid Updates and Discussion Board « Reply #17 on Jun 25, 2008, 8:46am »
TxSt-SM: Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) Upon motion of Regent Amato, seconded by Regent Flores, with all regents voting aye, it was ordered that Texas State University-San Marcos be authorized to take such actions as may be necessary and lawful to become classified as an NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) university, subject to approval by the Chancellor.
I think that if the Big 12 wanted to do a switch...they would dump BU and Tech and add Arkansas and TCU. Better travel to both schools and the apple cart would not be too upset in such a move.
Why would they dump a very successful program ( TECH ) for another small private school that has been sliding. ( TCU )
Re: Grid Updates and Discussion Board « Reply #19 on Sept 26, 2008, 2:58pm »
Three comments:
1. Georgia St. should be added to the CAA Football section. They're starting play as an FCS Independent in 2010 and will play CAA Football in 2012. Old Dominion as you know is on the 2009/2011 schedule. That brings CAA Football to 14 members in 2012: 8 full CAA members and 6 football-only affiliates. One of the more frequently repeated rumors is that, if there's a split between full members and affiliates, UMass, URI, UNH, and Maine will form a new football conference with Stony Brook (Big South football-only) and Albany (NEC football-only), probably under the America East banner.
2. Charlotte's chancellor recently concluded his football study and recommended to the Board of Trustees that they authorize the creation of a FCS football team to begin play in 2013. The trustees will vote on this in November. If approved, the earliest Charlotte could move to FBS is 2017. All new programs are required to play at the FCS level for at least 4 years. The most likely conference affiliation for them at the FCS level is the Big South. The CAA will likely have too many members unless there's a split, and the Southern Conference is rumored to be disinterested because of Charlotte's well-known ambitions to move to FBS level football.
3. In the grid comments, you're frequently using "BCS" when you mean "FBS". BCS only refers to the 6 BCS conferences: ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big XII, PAC-10 and SEC. FBS is the Football Bowl Subdivision, including all the former Division IA teams. I would take a school "considering a BCS move" to mean considering moving from FCS to a BCS conference, an extremely unlikely invitation for anyone to receive except Villanova.
Re: Grid Updates and Discussion Board « Reply #20 on Nov 27, 2008, 11:29pm »
You may want to give a little more love to UNT on the grid. It seems thata lot of information has come out in the pursuit of the new UNT stadium. Apparently, the word around is that the only reason they weren't #12 in CUSA instead of UTEPcame down to poor facilities, and they have replaced and/or are in the process of replacing all of the ir atheletic facilities. Apparently while TCU may not have seen the benefit of UNT in conference, SMU may not share that opinion. The new stadium should be up by 2010 or 2011, and at that point they would be probably the #1 expansion target for CUSA [or the SWC (CUSA West)].
Re: Grid Updates and Discussion Board « Reply #21 on Dec 13, 2008, 10:49am »
"I would take a school "considering a BCS move" to mean considering moving from FCS to a BCS conference, an extremely unlikely invitation for anyone to receive except Villanova. "
To Minuteman:
Why would you think that? Villanova is a small Catholic university, in of all places, Villanova. (technically Upper Merion Township). They have 12,500 seat stadium in one of the most exspensive neighborhoods of Philly(The Mainline) and not even close to being a FBS program let alone a BCS program. They are a basketball school and if, or as most suspect when the overbloated screwy Big Eats splits into FB and BB conferences, they will remain with their Catholic brethern. They are doing fine in the Colonial League. They had hopes of once becoming "The Notre Dame of the East" decades ago but after a few games with Penn State, they quickly gave up on that crazy idea! Nova wil probably continue to play FB at the D1AA (FCS) level and do well. They have plenty of options in that areana.
The school that is most likely to jump up from FCS to FBS would be Delaware. They do have a 20k average attendance and a perennial contender in the FCS division. But remember CFB is a big money investment that rarely makes money in and of itself. I would be curious to see exactly how many schools actually make any money from it. I have heard that only 10 or 12 programs make money. But the advertisement that an elite program brings to a university is huge. I'm just not sure that does or can be translated in a dollar figure. I also don't know if that can contribute to vast increases in enrollments either. I'm sure there is some direct correlation in some cases. Mizzou has reported over a 3000 increase in freshman this year since Mizzou had a good year in CFB (best since the 50's). Pitt has sucked at FB for the past 20 years or more and they are barely averaging 30K to 32K per game. Yet the Pitt has done ok as a university in enrollments and scholastic achievements. There is just so many students and so many dollars out there to be had. Competition is tough and getting tougher for higher education. I love seeing all these schools adding or increasing FB but somewhere along the line CFB is either going to semi-pro or go back to the old collegiate standards. I think the dollars will dictate it.
Hey Quinn, I love your grid, but I'd like to make some suggestions for updates.
I think you are far too generous to the MWC schools. No way is Air Force getting an invite to the PAC 10 ever if a reeling Big East didn't offer a slot to Army or Navy. Same for UNM. I think if the state legislature brought pressure on the Pac 10 to admit a school, it would be a UC system university like UC-Davis as they are much better academically and as such have more powerful alumni.
I'd list BYU as a long shot with Utah only, CSU with Colorado only, UNLV with Reno only, and Utah having the best shot at getting in if the Pac 10 expands with either BYU or Colorado.
The MWC is not a BCS conference. There are no candidates out there you could add to the hodgepodge of media markets that comprise the MWC to make it a BCS conference. If TCU joining didn't do it, it won't happen. That reality has to be sitting in at TCU. I'd list TCU as a possible mutineer who may escape back to CUSA if a slot opens.
Why would TCU want to downgrade from the MWC to the CUSA?
TCU is hoping to use the MWC as a stepping stone to the Big 12.
![[Home]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif)
![[Help]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif)
![[Search]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif)
![[Login]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif)
![[Search This Thread]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
![[avatar]](http://collegesportsinfo.com/images/admin.gif){kind=small}
![[yim]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/yim.gif)
![[msn]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/msn.gif)
![[aim]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/aim.gif)
![[homepage]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif)
Logged
![[avatar]](http://collegesportsinfo.com/icons/bama.gif){kind=icon}
