Academic prowess may be a cherry on top, but I sincerely doubt we ever add Tulane to the ATHLETIC conference if they can't compete in athletics. We would more likely add the best fit athletically that is also passable academically. Not the other way around.
I'm starting to like the idea of Tulane as #12 for the conference
- Thread starter isuno1fan
- Start date
Academic prowess may be a cherry on top, but I sincerely doubt we ever add Tulane to the ATHLETIC conference if they can't compete in athletics. We would more likely add the best fit athletically that is also passable academically. Not the other way around.
That's the difference. I believe Tulane can compete athletically. If Baylor can do it, Tulane can too.
Tulane already has a very good Baseball team and their Basketball team is currently 12-1 including a win over Georgia Tech. Football has a way to go...yes. I am betting $20M/yr reasons why they will at least be able to raise it up to be competitive.
There are no perfect realistic candidates for #12. IMO, Tulane has the most to like unless some traditional "name" school all of a sudden decides they'd rather be in the B12.
If they can't compete in football int he C-USA, what is adding more money going to do? Teams like Boise State built themselves into good football schools by beating bad teams. BSU could then sell a winning tradition to recruits. They built that tradition enough to get into a BCS game, even with less money. Now, Boise makes their own money despite their current conference and will be moving deservingly to a better conference.
If Tulane gets and influx of cash, but immediately starts getting destroyed by Big12 teams, they will have nothing to sell to recruits. It doesn't matter how much money you have if you never get a chance to win. It would take Tulane a REALLY long time to build up their program.
Currently, Tulane gets as much money from their conference as the other C-USA schools get, yet they can't win anything. That shows me that the athletic department can't even invest the funds they already have. What are they going to do with more money? Build a bigger stadium that the opposing fans can watch Tulane lose in? To build a program, you need to win. If Oregon had taken Phil Knights money and gone 2-10 every year, noone would care about the Ducks. Instead, they got an investment and built on their existing football tradition. Right now, Tulane has no tradition unless you count pre-WWII.
Sorry, but Tulane is not a sleeping giant. They are just asleep.
Oh, and Baylor had winning seasons post-WWII to build on. They still had to suck for a long time in the Big12 before they could win anything. Also, Baylor was still on the outside looking in during conference expansion talks, so it's not like they built themselves into a great program.
We'll see what happens...no point in arguing/debating with you as your opinion is set in stone it would appear.
I would like to be clear that I don't believe Tulane would be competitive as soon as they accepted a B12 invite. It would be a multi year process at the end of which I do believe they could be every bit as competitive as we are and maybe more so given their Southern location.
Past on field performance has little to do with the decision. Past wins is an indirect indicator, at best, of potential added conference revenue.
Since you brought it up, having parity in your conference is not a great ting in the BCS era. There is value to the conference in having an "easy win" team from a good market with AAU membership.
D
DistrictCyclone
Guest
This is where we fundamentally disagree (I think; I'm still not entirely clear what your argument is since you've contradicted yourself). Dividing up a market is a zero-sum game; a team can only carry part of a market. SLU only carries their very small share of the St. Louis market, not the entire thing. The same is true of Tulane--they can only lay claim to a paltry portion of the NOLA market.
TV networks are driving the bus here, and they're smart enough to know that a team's share of interest within a market is an equal component in the equation. From the networks' perspective, a market's value is isn't determined by the number of TV sets within it, but the number of TV sets within it that will actually watch your programming. SLU probably only "carries" about 5% of the St. Louis market, which is a pittance not worth adding them for. This is exactly what Neinas is talking about when he says the Big 12's TV partners are looking at the "quality" of a program.
This explains it in much more detail: The Geography of College Football Fans (and Realignment Chaos) - NYTimes.com
Well, for starters....they would have to change their logo. This struggles:
It looks so single-A baseball or D-League material.
It looks so single-A baseball or D-League material.
I know this has been thrown around but one team I think you need to consider is Memphis. They would be on the opposite end of the spectrum from Tulane (one very good academically...one not so much)
They have had "recent" football and basketball success. Their football coach was just canned after a bad year I think. But...they have a 60k stadium which normally for their conference games they do not fill up. Averaging somewhere in the 20's. I did look back though and their attendance in the "good" years was a lot better. They normally get 40k-mid50s in their first game..which is normally a BCS opponent.
Just throwing this out there because they would fit the footprint well, being a bridge of sorts to West Virginia. If you're saying Tulane should be thrown out because they are just good academically and not in football, then you need to then consider someone that has had success in sports if academics don't matter.
I think Memphis would be an excellent fit IF they were better academically. But this really seems to me something that could be improved with the right direction. Sports can too I guess. Anywho just food for thought.
They have had "recent" football and basketball success. Their football coach was just canned after a bad year I think. But...they have a 60k stadium which normally for their conference games they do not fill up. Averaging somewhere in the 20's. I did look back though and their attendance in the "good" years was a lot better. They normally get 40k-mid50s in their first game..which is normally a BCS opponent.
Just throwing this out there because they would fit the footprint well, being a bridge of sorts to West Virginia. If you're saying Tulane should be thrown out because they are just good academically and not in football, then you need to then consider someone that has had success in sports if academics don't matter.
I think Memphis would be an excellent fit IF they were better academically. But this really seems to me something that could be improved with the right direction. Sports can too I guess. Anywho just food for thought.
I think what you are missing is that he is indicating that Tulane's market share would/could change. No different than saying if SLU started playing in the BE next year, wouldn't their market share change in StL? While the networks are smart enough to look at current market share, I would argue they are equally smart enough to look at potential market share. Who has greater potential market share, Cincy or Tulane? I would argue Tulane, as Cincy, has been in the BE, had time to build a BCS quality program, and still doesn't have market share. Tulane on the other hand is in a rabid football environment, with a new stadium on the horizon, a large market and quality opponents they might be able to build a larger market share that can compete with LSU. I believe the theory is to slowly bleed money to Tulane if it came in. So remember that might be attractive to B12 members so that they can slow the hit to their share of the pie, where Cincy would probably get a full share within 1 or 2 years.
Honestly there is risk involved in whatever the B12 decides to do, whether that be to stay at 10 or expand to 12, 14 or 16.
There is a reason the Big East didn't offer Memphis. Memphis will never be in the B12 either.
Your contradictions and lack of comprehension makes responding pointless, but since you are trying so hard...
One only needs part of a market (and not even a majority) to carry it. I'll assume you understand that, so it should not take you too many more posts to understand different teams with-in that market can gain several conferences access (carry) a market. To facilitate your comprehension of this concept, think of St. Louis . Both Illinois and MU have part of the market, and both share the market with pro sports only fans. Yet both carry it for their conferences. Hell, even the presence of SLU, a team followed less than MU, ILL, and pro sports, has the brought the St. Louis market into the A-10.
Another example to hep you: Houston and Dallas markets being claimed by both the SEC (A$M) and Big 12 (UT). Texas has a bigger part of the market by number of fans, yet A$M still gets the SEC the Texas markets.
Last edited:
No. Expansion needs to happen. We need to find #12 after Louisville. Then expansion needs to stop.
No, you don't expand if the new schools don't add sufficient value for the TV networks and existing B12 schools. ND adds sufficient value, no other school does with the possible exception of BYU. The BYU and L'Ville combo would be barely acceptable for expansion IMO. Any other combination not including ND is definitely not worth it.
ND FB is in a rut as an indy and likely will stay that way. B12 membership with constant recruiting exposure in TX would get them out of their FB rut and enhance their other sports. I cannot see ND staying in the BE with the likes of Houston and UCF.
So you want to save a few bucks by hurting our conference? You're an idiot. Quit talking about ND and BYU too, you're clueless.
Ah yes, the name calling has to start for no reason.
Answer this. Why in the hell would the B12 add any schools that would devalue/decrease TV revenue shares for existing members? There is no school besides ND and possibly BYU that adds at least $20M/yr of TV network value for the B12.
