i thought the Big East sucked?

[orangenauburn]

That is why WVU might get targeted by SEC ... why SU, UConn, Rutgers are frequent names tossed about in expansion discussion

 

[KaiserUEO]

not sure where to go from here.....

 

[SU2NASA]

SU, UConn, Pitt, and RU are mentioned because they're in areas with lots of TV sets that could be used to watch things such as the Big Ten Network.

 

[BleedsOrange44]

That is why WVU might get targeted by SEC ... why SU, UConn, Rutgers are frequent names tossed about in expansion discussion

Adding teams for expansion has nothing to do with the quality of your football program. Has to do with money/television contracts. Nothing else.

 

[orangenauburn]

They could get better teams. Those markets are overrated I thought? I thought those were pro sports towns and basketball towns

 

[orangenauburn]

The point is these teams don't suck if they are. So valuable due too markets and tv now do they?

 

[BleedsOrange44]

The point is these teams don't suck if they are. So valuable due too markets and tv now do they?

Point is it has nothing to do with the quality of the football programs. Only with TV markets, and revenue. If SU sucked like they did in Robinson years, but still had NYC, they'd be valuable. Not because their football program was good, but because of the television market they bring. That's what all of this is about. That's why even though Rutgers has no history, and has only been ranked 1 year in the last 10, some are still stating they are valuable because there is a feeling they bring NYC (some disagree, but that's a separate discussion). Expanding conferences in to new markets, larger television contracts, etc. I'm not sure how else to put it, that's pretty straight forward and common knowledge.

Texas A&M (yes they are ranked high this year) has not been that good for the last 10-15 years. Here are there records: 9-4, 6-7, 4-8, 7-6, 9-4, 5-6, 7-5, 4-8, 6-6. That's from 2010-2002. Yet, the SEC wants them. Why? To get in to Texas. That's all.

 

[fanfanclubclub]

Point is it has nothing to do with the quality of the football programs. Only with TV markets, and revenue . . .

Texas A&M (yes they are ranked high this year) has not been that good for the last 10-15 years. Here are there records: 9-4, 6-7, 4-8, 7-6, 9-4, 5-6, 7-5, 4-8, 6-6. That's from 2010-2002. Yet, the SEC wants them. Why? To get in to Texas. That's all.

I agree with most of what you are saying, but the 'quality of the football programs' has a huge effect on 'tv market revenue,' so to some extent I disagree.

Texas A&M established their program as a high quality football program decades ago, and ever since then, they have enjoyed one of the greatest fanbases in all of sports. By adding A&M, the SEC is not merely adding Texas as a TV market, they are adding a high quality football program with a rabid fanbase, an administration absolutely dedicated to football, and top notch facilities.

If this were merely about markets, Houston would have gotten the invite instead of A&M. This is also about quality football programs.

 

[BleedsOrange44]

I agree with most of what you are saying, but the 'quality of the football programs' has a huge effect on 'tv market revenue,' so to some extent I disagree.

Texas A&M established their program as a high quality football program decades ago, and ever since then, they have enjoyed one of the greatest fanbases in all of sports. By adding A&M, the SEC is not merely adding Texas as a TV market, they are adding a high quality football program with a rabid fanbase, an administration absolutely dedicated to football, and top notch facilities.

If this were merely about markets, Houston would have gotten the invite instead of A&M. This is also about quality football programs.

It's more about fan base than quality of the program. Texas A&M, even when they are 4-8, sell out every game and have a rabid fan base. Houston does not. When Houston is really good they don't have that. That's the difference. It's about revenue which comes from TV markets and fan base. Why do you think mediocre Notre Dame is on TV all the time and has a national dilusional fan base even when they are an average or bad team? But if a team went 1-11 every year, but had a rabid fan base that went to every game no matter what and was in a good market, that team would be in demand. If a team went 11-1 every year but had no interest in the program, they would not be in demand.

We are probably pretty close in our opinions here, but I guess my main point was to suggest that just because other conferences want Big East schools to join their conference, doesn't mean that the Big East is suddenly a much better football conference than people say.

 

[Dick_in_MI]

That is why WVU might get targeted by SEC ... why SU, UConn, Rutgers are frequent names tossed about in expansion discussion

Well, the names are tossed about but nobody has taken them yet, have they? Besides, how many people admire the MWC just because a few teams were lured from that conference.

More than anything, the BE sucks as a conference for the simple fact that there isn't a single member on the football side that wouldn't bolt if they were given the opportunity

 

[orange03]

It does suck.

 

[BleedsOrange44]

It does suck.

Well "suck" is relative. I don't consider the big east to suck, but I do consider them the weakest BCS conference in football.