We have a thousand threads on picking new members.

Facilities is always a big deal and a deal breaker for some.
Texas ST and Georgia Southern improved right before moving up .
I imagine any candidate would have to do the same so pointing out stadium problems is pointless.

Winning is important but how important winning at a lower level guarantees nothing.
Arkansas ST took fourteen years I believe before getting to a bowl game .
They are bowl regulars now and are doing great.

Market yeah that is great if your market cares about you.

Commitment is what really matters it is what has turned the corner for ULL and Ark ST. The reason Georgia Southern and App ST moved up and have been good commitment.

Texas St fans how much was invested in the move ?
I know the stadium doubled in size did a football operations building get built also. Total infrastructure investment is what I'm looking for not scholarship costs.

Same for Georgia Southern total for stadium and FOC .

(05-27-2015 03:42 AM)MJG Wrote:  Texas St fans how much was invested in the move ?
I know the stadium doubled in size did a football operations building get built also. Total infrastructure investment is what I'm looking for not scholarship costs.

Same for Georgia Southern total for stadium and FOC .

I can tell you that AppState made an $80m commitment to facilities both prior to, during and after our SBC invite and about a little over half of that was football stadium, operations and indoor practice facility related.

Was told a few weeks ago that another round of stadium expansion is a priority of our new administration including additional club seating capacity. Olympic facilities will also be studied and recommendations made for venue changes and upgrades.

It's a big commitment to move up. I truly believe CCU could do it if they made it clear what's required to make the move to the right people.

(05-27-2015 06:06 AM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 03:42 AM)MJG Wrote:  Texas St fans how much was invested in the move ?
I know the stadium doubled in size did a football operations building get built also. Total infrastructure investment is what I'm looking for not scholarship costs.

Same for Georgia Southern total for stadium and FOC .

I can tell you that AppState made an $80m commitment to facilities both prior to, during and after our SBC invite and about a little over half of that was football stadium, operations and indoor practice facility related.

Was told a few weeks ago that another round of stadium expansion is a priority of our new administration including additional club seating capacity. Olympic facilities will also be studied and recommendations made for venue changes and upgrades.

It's a big commitment to move up. I truly believe CCU could do it if they made it clear what's required to make the move to the right people.

the 78 mil arena at uta just got us to where nearly everyone else already was since we didnt have a dedicated arena for basketball. now with 5.5 mill improvements to baseball/softball complex, we are actually improving our position. adding womens golf is only a small step but still a step up from where we were. I dont know what is next on the drawing board but it may be tennis complex improvements if the scuttlebutt is correct. maybe small steps to the rest of you guys, but shows a change of direction for us in that sports at uta have not been much of a focus in the last generation or so.

(05-27-2015 03:18 AM)MJG Wrote:  Winning is important but how important winning at a lower level guarantees nothing.

It guarantees nothing but historically good FCS teams (GS, App, Marahall) have all done better after moving up than middle of the road or bad teams (GaSt, MTSU, F_U) have done.

It's like picking a good mutual fund, past performance does not guarantee success but we would be idiots for picking up another GaSt.

Fan support has always been key to me. If the citizens of your community and general area don't give a flip about your athletic programs, why should anyone else?

The market strategy means nothing if no one cares to watch.

(05-27-2015 07:40 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  Fan support has always been key to me. If the citizens of your community and general area don't give a flip about your athletic programs, why should anyone else?

The market strategy means nothing if no one cares to watch.

I agree.

A lot of emphasis during conference realignment through out college football has been about programs who are in major TV market areas.

They fail to understand that colleges located in major cities don't always translate into successful programs. Georgia State is a great example.

One program by me who received a Big 10 invite recently is Rutgers University. They have lack luster tradition and a fan base that packs the stadium only when they are winning (which is rare). Their tradition is being the Birth Place of College Football and losing football games. Rutgers is located 25 miles west of NYC and the most densely populated state in NJ. The people are there and there's no University anywhere close that can capture this public. Their state also provides top intelligent recruits. Top 12 in the country easily.

What this program fails to do is WIN consistently at any level of competetion. Just competing with the Big 10 East of Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Ohio State, and Maryland will be near impossible.

(05-27-2015 03:42 AM)MJG Wrote:  Texas St fans how much was invested in the move ?
I know the stadium doubled in size did a football operations building get built also. Total infrastructure investment is what I'm looking for not scholarship costs.

Same for Georgia Southern total for stadium and FOC .

Is this an audit?

(05-27-2015 08:10 AM)NewJersey GATA Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 07:40 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  Fan support has always been key to me. If the citizens of your community and general area don't give a flip about your athletic programs, why should anyone else?

The market strategy means nothing if no one cares to watch.

I agree.

A lot of emphasis during conference realignment through out college football has been about programs who are in major TV market areas.

They fail to understand that colleges located in major cities don't always translate into successful programs. Georgia State is a great example.

One program by me who received a Big 10 invite recently is Rutgers University. They have lack luster tradition and a fan base that packs the stadium only when they are winning (which is rare). Their tradition is being the Birth Place of College Football and losing football games. Rutgers is located 25 miles west of NYC and the most densely populated state in NJ. The people are there and there's no University anywhere close that can capture this public. Their state also provides top intelligent recruits. Top 12 in the country easily.

What this program fails to do is WIN consistently at any level of competetion. Just competing with the Big 10 East of Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Ohio State, and Maryland will be near impossible.

But what happens when Rutgers invests and gets their act together? What is the value of a 11 win B1G program in NYC? That's why they took them. Also what is the value when a B1G East school plays Rutgers on TV. Does that now generate more interest in NYC and NJ? You bet it does.

This isn't an either or proposition. You have to make an investment in facilities AND generate interest in your market by winning.

(05-27-2015 07:16 AM)runamuck Wrote:  the 78 mil arena at uta just got us to where nearly everyone else already was since we didnt have a dedicated arena for basketball. now with 5.5 mill improvements to baseball/softball complex, we are actually improving our position. adding womens golf is only a small step but still a step up from where we were. I dont know what is next on the drawing board but it may be tennis complex improvements if the scuttlebutt is correct. maybe small steps to the rest of you guys, but shows a change of direction for us in that sports at uta have not been much of a focus in the last generation or so.

While I think you mean it gave us a dedicated arena for our sports team, College Park Center is far more than gets us to where everyone else is. CPC is a crown jewel, state-of-the-art venue. Troy is close and may just be prefence as to who is better, but I've been told by those who have traveled that CPC is the best venue in the conference and one of the best in the state.

Rumor is that the Longhorns could tolerate A&M having a better facility in Reed Arena, but has made a higher priority cause UTA has a better basketball home and they view that as unacceptable.

Now the softball and baseball upgrades are bringing those venues up to what everyone else has. CPC however, is what every basketball venue wishes it was.

(05-27-2015 09:29 AM)panama Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:10 AM)NewJersey GATA Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 07:40 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  Fan support has always been key to me. If the citizens of your community and general area don't give a flip about your athletic programs, why should anyone else?

The market strategy means nothing if no one cares to watch.

I agree.

A lot of emphasis during conference realignment through out college football has been about programs who are in major TV market areas.

They fail to understand that colleges located in major cities don't always translate into successful programs. Georgia State is a great example.

One program by me who received a Big 10 invite recently is Rutgers University. They have lack luster tradition and a fan base that packs the stadium only when they are winning (which is rare). Their tradition is being the Birth Place of College Football and losing football games. Rutgers is located 25 miles west of NYC and the most densely populated state in NJ. The people are there and there's no University anywhere close that can capture this public. Their state also provides top intelligent recruits. Top 12 in the country easily.

What this program fails to do is WIN consistently at any level of competetion. Just competing with the Big 10 East of Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Ohio State, and Maryland will be near impossible.

But what happens when Rutgers invests and gets their act together? What is the value of a 11 win B1G program in NYC? That's why they took them. Also what is the value when a B1G East school plays Rutgers on TV. Does that now generate more interest in NYC and NJ? You bet it does.

This isn't an either or proposition. You have to make an investment in facilities AND generate interest in your market by winning.

well what happens when every FBS team invests and gets their act together?

every FBS team has "potential" to get better. But after a while of always having that potential, you lose it if you do nothing with it. I don't see rutgers becoming a top 25 power just because they want to.

seems like Ga State always refers to "big market" teams by what they "could" do. Georgia State "could" win an FBS National Championship. But they won't.

(05-27-2015 03:18 AM)MJG Wrote:  We have a thousand threads on picking new members.

Facilities is always a big deal and a deal breaker for some.
Texas ST and Georgia Southern improved right before moving up .
I imagine any candidate would have to do the same so pointing out stadium problems is pointless.

Winning is important but how important winning at a lower level guarantees nothing.
Arkansas ST took fourteen years I believe before getting to a bowl game .
They are bowl regulars now and are doing great.

Market yeah that is great if your market cares about you.

Commitment is what really matters it is what has turned the corner for ULL and Ark ST. The reason Georgia Southern and App ST moved up and have been good commitment.

AState and UL were the first Sun Belt schools to immediately use success to start major capital programs. In fairness Troy had made a big outlay ahead of that, but UNT, MTSU, FIU, FAU never tried to capitalize while the iron was hot.

(05-27-2015 09:29 AM)panama Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:10 AM)NewJersey GATA Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 07:40 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  Fan support has always been key to me. If the citizens of your community and general area don't give a flip about your athletic programs, why should anyone else?

The market strategy means nothing if no one cares to watch.

I agree.

A lot of emphasis during conference realignment through out college football has been about programs who are in major TV market areas.

They fail to understand that colleges located in major cities don't always translate into successful programs. Georgia State is a great example.

One program by me who received a Big 10 invite recently is Rutgers University. They have lack luster tradition and a fan base that packs the stadium only when they are winning (which is rare). Their tradition is being the Birth Place of College Football and losing football games. Rutgers is located 25 miles west of NYC and the most densely populated state in NJ. The people are there and there's no University anywhere close that can capture this public. Their state also provides top intelligent recruits. Top 12 in the country easily.

What this program fails to do is WIN consistently at any level of competetion. Just competing with the Big 10 East of Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Ohio State, and Maryland will be near impossible.

But what happens when Rutgers invests and gets their act together? What is the value of a 11 win B1G program in NYC? That's why they took them. Also what is the value when a B1G East school plays Rutgers on TV. Does that now generate more interest in NYC and NJ? You bet it does.

This isn't an either or proposition. You have to make an investment in facilities AND generate interest in your market by winning.

Rutgers already made that investment. They expanded their stadium in '09 and their athletic budget is nearly $80 million. We're in the middle (or end) of Rutgers most successful period of playing football. Their attendance is higher than ever. That program is not going to take off or capture significant additional "market share".

(05-27-2015 10:54 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 09:29 AM)panama Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:10 AM)NewJersey GATA Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 07:40 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  Fan support has always been key to me. If the citizens of your community and general area don't give a flip about your athletic programs, why should anyone else?

The market strategy means nothing if no one cares to watch.

I agree.

A lot of emphasis during conference realignment through out college football has been about programs who are in major TV market areas.

They fail to understand that colleges located in major cities don't always translate into successful programs. Georgia State is a great example.

One program by me who received a Big 10 invite recently is Rutgers University. They have lack luster tradition and a fan base that packs the stadium only when they are winning (which is rare). Their tradition is being the Birth Place of College Football and losing football games. Rutgers is located 25 miles west of NYC and the most densely populated state in NJ. The people are there and there's no University anywhere close that can capture this public. Their state also provides top intelligent recruits. Top 12 in the country easily.

What this program fails to do is WIN consistently at any level of competetion. Just competing with the Big 10 East of Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Ohio State, and Maryland will be near impossible.

But what happens when Rutgers invests and gets their act together? What is the value of a 11 win B1G program in NYC? That's why they took them. Also what is the value when a B1G East school plays Rutgers on TV. Does that now generate more interest in NYC and NJ? You bet it does.

This isn't an either or proposition. You have to make an investment in facilities AND generate interest in your market by winning.

Rutgers already made that investment. They expanded their stadium in '09 and their athletic budget is nearly $80 million. We're in the middle (or end) of Rutgers most successful period of playing football. Their attendance is higher than ever. That program is not going to take off or capture significant additional "market share".

And ran a $30 million deficit all along the way except when it was higher. Amazes me how the state never cracked down on that.

(05-27-2015 07:16 AM)GaSouthern Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 03:18 AM)MJG Wrote:  Winning is important but how important winning at a lower level guarantees nothing.

It guarantees nothing but historically good FCS teams (GS, App, Marahall) have all done better after moving up than middle of the road or bad teams (GaSt, MTSU, F_U) have done.

It's like picking a good mutual fund, past performance does not guarantee success but we would be idiots for picking up another GaSt.

Not to argue, but...

Marshall I get, but the other two you have illustrated to show how a winning FCS history translates to a combined two non-conference wins, one co-championship and no bowl appearances. Not saying you aren't a great add, but let's tap the brakes on how great you are until you have actually done something great.

Meanwhile, a team like Idaho had eight conference championships, 9 1-AA playoff appearances and 40+ All-Americans at the 1-AA level. They now are regarded as dead weight. Success doesn't lower doesn't always mean higher.

EDIT: MTSU also has a high number of conference championships, bowl appearances and wins at the FBS level.

(05-27-2015 11:07 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 07:16 AM)GaSouthern Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 03:18 AM)MJG Wrote:  Winning is important but how important winning at a lower level guarantees nothing.

It guarantees nothing but historically good FCS teams (GS, App, Marahall) have all done better after moving up than middle of the road or bad teams (GaSt, MTSU, F_U) have done.

It's like picking a good mutual fund, past performance does not guarantee success but we would be idiots for picking up another GaSt.

Not to argue, but...

Marshall I get, but the other two you have illustrated to show how a winning FCS history translates to a combined two non-conference wins, one co-championship and no bowl appearances. Not saying you aren't a great add, but let's tap the brakes on how great you are until you have actually done something great.

Meanwhile, a team like Idaho had eight conference championships, 9 1-AA playoff appearances and 40+ All-Americans at the 1-AA level. They now are regarded as dead weight. Success doesn't lower doesn't always mean higher.

EDIT: MTSU also has a high number of conference championships, bowl appearances and wins at the FBS level.

?

I can't believe I'm actually going to defend GSU, but I am... lol GSU would have gone to a bowl if it had moved up when Marshall did, etc... When Marshall moved up, there was no waiting period, so I can certainly give them a pass on that...

GSU and Marshall are VERY similar. Relatively small college town dominated by larger in-state big brother...rabid, kooky and somewhat eccentric fanbases, and the whole town is behind the university...I mean really behind the school...

And then there is the commitment to success. Both schools went through a period of dominating FCS (1-AA) and then made the necessary changes to move up and with the same degree of success.

Bottom line is, IMHO, there has to be a marriage of resources, commitment, market, and a loyal fanbase. If any one of these is missing, then there is a real problem. And I think it has to be done over time and not too quickly. Look at UTSA for instance. They had a couple of what I call "adrenaline" seasons where EVERYONE was so amped up to be 1-A that they had a couple of good seasons, but now they are a dumpster fire.

I agree with you. And I do think that they were fantastic adds for the SBC and not just in football.

But, they have been FBS one year and yet some of their posters are already touting themselves as examples of a successful move-up. Give it time and let the performance on the field establish themselves as a successful example is all I am saying. Jury is still out if for no other reason than the time period is too small.

Plus, my suspicions are UTA would be more like UTSA in how they moved up, so I'm not gonna knock them. Haven't been following them since we parted ways as conference members, but is UTSA really a dumpster fire or did they just have a bad year?

(05-27-2015 02:08 PM)THUNDERGround Wrote:  I can't believe I'm actually going to defend GSU, but I am... lol GSU would have gone to a bowl if it had moved up when Marshall did, etc... When Marshall moved up, there was no waiting period, so I can certainly give them a pass on that...

GSU and Marshall are VERY similar. Relatively small college town dominated by larger in-state big brother...rabid, kooky and somewhat eccentric fanbases, and the whole town is behind the university...I mean really behind the school...

And then there is the commitment to success. Both schools went through a period of dominating FCS (1-AA) and then made the necessary changes to move up and with the same degree of success.

Bottom line is, IMHO, there has to be a marriage of resources, commitment, market, and a loyal fanbase. If any one of these is missing, then there is a real problem. And I think it has to be done over time and not too quickly. Look at UTSA for instance. They had a couple of what I call "adrenaline" seasons where EVERYONE was so amped up to be 1-A that they had a couple of good seasons, but now they are a dumpster fire.

Not to defend utsa, cause I'd like nothing more than for NutsaCK to BE a Dumpster Fire. But in fairness, I think you have to give them a few more years before rendering such a "label" on them . . . . .

I do give them high marks for "marketing" and "scheduling". . . . It certainly played a part in the initial "buzz" over their program . . . Last year, they were supposed to be world beaters, but it didn't happen . . . .

It will be interesting to see how they handle adversity, be it long or short term, as well as how their fan base responds .. . . should that adversity be indeed long . . . .

The thing about markets is this: If Georgia State ever starts winning big, then they'll be the toast of Georgia and college football. It's a great worst-to-first story and on top of that they're smack dab in the middle of the biggest market in the South, or what passes for the South after decades of mass migration southward.

To me, that's why Georgia State and other similar programs are attractive. If you can put the other pieces of the puzzle together, you got a potentially huge fanbase to tap.