(10-15-2019 03:09 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 02:40 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 12:16 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I think many people who criticize Boise (the city) have never actually been there. It's not NYC or LA. But I don't see why people think Boise is small.....the metro area is like 700,000. And the city proper is bigger than major cities like Birmingham, Alabama.

I don't have any thoughts about Boise as a city, but 700,000 is a small market. It's the 100th largest TV market. Similar market sizes are South Bend, Indiana; Ft. Smith-Fayetteville, AR; Tri-Cities (Johnson City), TN; Evansville, IN; Ft. Wayne, IN; Augusta, GA. Not exactly burgeoning metropolises for TV purposes, even if some of them might be nice cities (indeed, I live in NW Arkansas and happen to think it's very nice and very underappreciated nationally for quality of life).

FWIW they carry that market. That has to be worth something significant.

Not especially when you think about that it's 275,000ish households. Even if they carry 75% of that, that's 206,000 households. That estimate is way too high when you consider the # of people that don't care about sports, Idaho fans, and other fans that are in Boise. But whatever, for example purposes...

Orlando is 1,565,000 households. So if UCF carries even just 20% of the market (which polling would suggest we do), that's 313,000 households. The difference between a big share in a small market and a medium share of a big market is huge. The argument becomes better for Boise if we're talking about FIU or Georgia State in a market that barely acknowledges their existence. (But even if we assume Ga State only pulls 5% of Atlanta, that's 117,000 households. Even modest gains in market share will push them past Boise quickly).

And the other problem for Boise is that their entire appeal is based on football success. If they go into a slump -- which admittedly their program has been very consistent over its history -- they lose the national appeal that makes up for their small market.

(10-15-2019 06:12 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 05:49 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 04:52 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 12:02 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  I think with Hawaii you have to factor in geography. It's one thing to go a state or two out of your footprint; it's another thing entirely to jump half an ocean to add a school. But playing within the parameters of the exercise:

BYU is the obvious bell cow though unless the conference is a P5, they're not interested, thanks for playing. Of the MWC schools, San Diego State and Colorado State are the strongest adds, but don't overlook UNLV (big, nationally relevant and growing market that is already an important sports city and is only getting more so with the Raiders inbound). Otherwise, I don't see any of the others generating serious interest from the P5 or even the AAC, outside a football-only membership for Boise State or Air Force.

You obviously never check the standings in MWC sports or you would not have mentioned CSU. They consistently rank near the bottom in football and basketball . If you are trying to strengthen your conference you don’t want them. Actually the only way you can get Schools in this region is to take at least 3.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Colorado st doesn’t have baseball either. Most of the MWC schools do except them Wyoming and Utah St. Boise just restarted their baseball.

Colorado State is in a good market and a good location with good academics. The right coach can change their football and basketball fortunes, but you can't quick fix that other stuff.

My guess is if baseball was a dealbreaker for admission to a better conference, they'd have a program up and running in record time.

Exactly, CSU is a peer institution to the big public research universities in the AAC and would not be considered academically repugnant by the private schools. They have more alumni in Denver than CU; they've got a beautiful new football stadium.

Honestly, what they need to is to get out of the MWC and differentiate themselves from the nearby MWC programs. They've got everything in place to be a much more successful program than they are.

(10-15-2019 12:02 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  I think with Hawaii you have to factor in geography. It's one thing to go a state or two out of your footprint; it's another thing entirely to jump half an ocean to add a school. But playing within the parameters of the exercise:

BYU is the obvious bell cow though unless the conference is a P5, they're not interested, thanks for playing. Of the MWC schools, San Diego State and Colorado State are the strongest adds, but don't overlook UNLV (big, nationally relevant and growing market that is already an important sports city and is only getting more so with the Raiders inbound). Otherwise, I don't see any of the others generating serious interest from the P5 or even the AAC, outside a football-only membership for Boise State or Air Force.

Agreed with all of this - BYU is the most valuable out of this group but won't join any league that isn't P5, Colorado State and San Diego State are the strongest potential adds right now, and UNLV has a massive amount of potential.

Here's an important demographic fact: Las Vegas is the largest metro area in the country that doesn't have at least one P5 school in its home state or metro area. (Washington, DC technically doesn't have a P5 school within its borders, but the University of Maryland is in its metro area and most of the area's residents live in either Virginia or Maryland that have P5 representation. Plus, Georgetown is a Big East basketball member.)

In fact, the only other two metro areas in the entire top 50 that can state the same are Providence and Hartford, but even they have schools in the Big East for basketball. If UNLV could improve its academics the way Louisville was able to do in the prior decade leading up to their ACC invite while simply being half-decent on-the-field/court, they would be an incredibly valuable school because they are in the largest market by far without any P5 competition and it's not even close.

(10-16-2019 10:27 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 12:02 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  I think with Hawaii you have to factor in geography. It's one thing to go a state or two out of your footprint; it's another thing entirely to jump half an ocean to add a school. But playing within the parameters of the exercise:

BYU is the obvious bell cow though unless the conference is a P5, they're not interested, thanks for playing. Of the MWC schools, San Diego State and Colorado State are the strongest adds, but don't overlook UNLV (big, nationally relevant and growing market that is already an important sports city and is only getting more so with the Raiders inbound). Otherwise, I don't see any of the others generating serious interest from the P5 or even the AAC, outside a football-only membership for Boise State or Air Force.

Agreed with all of this - BYU is the most valuable out of this group but won't join any league that isn't P5, Colorado State and San Diego State are the strongest potential adds right now, and UNLV has a massive amount of potential.

Here's an important demographic fact: Las Vegas is the largest metro area in the country that doesn't have at least one P5 school in its home state or metro area. (Washington, DC technically doesn't have a P5 school within its borders, but the University of Maryland is in its metro area and most of the area's residents live in either Virginia or Maryland that have P5 representation. Plus, Georgetown is a Big East basketball member.)

In fact, the only other two metro areas in the entire top 50 that can state the same are Providence and Hartford, but even they have schools in the Big East for basketball. If UNLV could improve its academics the way Louisville was able to do in the prior decade leading up to their ACC invite while simply being half-decent on-the-field/court, they would be an incredibly valuable school because they are in the largest market by far without any P5 competition and it's not even close.

UNLV is in an interesting position so far as improving academically. As an accident of history, they aren't the state flagship, so a lot of resources are going to the Reno campus that has a lot less growth potential. This has happened in some other smaller states...Boise vs Idaho; Alaska-Anchorage vs Alaska-Fairbanks; North Dakota St vs North Dakota.

UNR isn't going to get de-emphasized, so in a state with limited resources, that's going to limit what UNLV can do unless the local business community really steps up and makes large investments through endowments. UNR, for instance, has an endowment nearly $100m greater than UNLV ($275m-ish). Even with UNLV's larger student population (about 9,000 total), they're at best operating at some sort of parity. That's just not a formula for building a major research university that would be acceptable to the PAC-12. Remember, some PAC-12 chancellors really took a leak on Colorado and Utah, even though Colorado especially is a top tier public university and AAU member. And Utah is leaps and bounds ahead of UNLV...Utah has a $1bn endowment did $380m in research last year compared to $105m for Reno and just $66m for UNLV.

Unless some Vegas billionaires step in and make giant gifts to UNLV, it's just not going to happen.

(10-16-2019 10:27 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 12:02 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  I think with Hawaii you have to factor in geography. It's one thing to go a state or two out of your footprint; it's another thing entirely to jump half an ocean to add a school. But playing within the parameters of the exercise:

BYU is the obvious bell cow though unless the conference is a P5, they're not interested, thanks for playing. Of the MWC schools, San Diego State and Colorado State are the strongest adds, but don't overlook UNLV (big, nationally relevant and growing market that is already an important sports city and is only getting more so with the Raiders inbound). Otherwise, I don't see any of the others generating serious interest from the P5 or even the AAC, outside a football-only membership for Boise State or Air Force.

Agreed with all of this - BYU is the most valuable out of this group but won't join any league that isn't P5, Colorado State and San Diego State are the strongest potential adds right now, and UNLV has a massive amount of potential.

Here's an important demographic fact: Las Vegas is the largest metro area in the country that doesn't have at least one P5 school in its home state or metro area. (Washington, DC technically doesn't have a P5 school within its borders, but the University of Maryland is in its metro area and most of the area's residents live in either Virginia or Maryland that have P5 representation. Plus, Georgetown is a Big East basketball member.)

In fact, the only other two metro areas in the entire top 50 that can state the same are Providence and Hartford, but even they have schools in the Big East for basketball. If UNLV could improve its academics the way Louisville was able to do in the prior decade leading up to their ACC invite while simply being half-decent on-the-field/court, they would be an incredibly valuable school because they are in the largest market by far without any P5 competition and it's not even close.

Where do you think Air Force fits in the hierarchy? A better or worse add than CSU or UNLV?

Air Force is the biggest one I just can't figure out its value.

(10-15-2019 12:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The default option for any conference is to do nothing. Any candidate has to offer a very compelling case to get a conference to move past its own disagreements and do something. What are things that every conference member can agree they want more of? Money and status.

So who adds money and status among those schools? Football first (consistent football over the long haul, not just last year or last week), basketball a distant second. Anything else (like academics, for the "status" component) is a lesser factor.

1. BYU
2. Boise State

(Extremely large gap here.)

3. San Diego State
4. Fresno State
(gap)
5, Air Force (football only)
6. Hawai'i (though distance is a deal breaker)
(gap)
7. New Mexico
8. Colorado State (marking them down because of state's obsession with Broncos)
9. Nevada
10. Utah State
11. Wyoming
12. UNLV (football will be even more invisible there after the Raiders arrive)
13. San Jose State

If you are ranking on just money and status Air Force is way too low on your list.

(10-16-2019 01:13 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 12:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The default option for any conference is to do nothing. Any candidate has to offer a very compelling case to get a conference to move past its own disagreements and do something. What are things that every conference member can agree they want more of? Money and status.

So who adds money and status among those schools? Football first (consistent football over the long haul, not just last year or last week), basketball a distant second. Anything else (like academics, for the "status" component) is a lesser factor.

1. BYU
2. Boise State

(Extremely large gap here.)

3. San Diego State
4. Fresno State
(gap)
5, Air Force (football only)
6. Hawai'i (though distance is a deal breaker)
(gap)
7. New Mexico
8. Colorado State (marking them down because of state's obsession with Broncos)
9. Nevada
10. Utah State
11. Wyoming
12. UNLV (football will be even more invisible there after the Raiders arrive)
13. San Jose State

If you are ranking on just money and status Air Force is way too low on your list.

I can see the status argument -- maybe school presidents would puff up their chests more about adding the Air Force Academy to their conference than they would about a lot of other schools. I have accounted for that; maybe you think the status factor is even more important.

The money part I definitely disagree with, because money in this context means only added value to a TV contract. Air Force does not deliver the ratings benefit (compared to an average G5 team) that Army or Navy do. Look at past ratings on Sports Media Watch; for example, compare the audience sizes for Boise State vs. AFA games to other Boise State telecasts.

(10-16-2019 10:08 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 03:09 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 02:40 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 12:16 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I think many people who criticize Boise (the city) have never actually been there. It's not NYC or LA. But I don't see why people think Boise is small.....the metro area is like 700,000. And the city proper is bigger than major cities like Birmingham, Alabama.

I don't have any thoughts about Boise as a city, but 700,000 is a small market. It's the 100th largest TV market. Similar market sizes are South Bend, Indiana; Ft. Smith-Fayetteville, AR; Tri-Cities (Johnson City), TN; Evansville, IN; Ft. Wayne, IN; Augusta, GA. Not exactly burgeoning metropolises for TV purposes, even if some of them might be nice cities (indeed, I live in NW Arkansas and happen to think it's very nice and very underappreciated nationally for quality of life).

FWIW they carry that market. That has to be worth something significant.

Not especially when you think about that it's 275,000ish households. Even if they carry 75% of that, that's 206,000 households. That estimate is way too high when you consider the # of people that don't care about sports, Idaho fans, and other fans that are in Boise. But whatever, for example purposes...

Orlando is 1,565,000 households. So if UCF carries even just 20% of the market (which polling would suggest we do), that's 313,000 households. The difference between a big share in a small market and a medium share of a big market is huge. The argument becomes better for Boise if we're talking about FIU or Georgia State in a market that barely acknowledges their existence. (But even if we assume Ga State only pulls 5% of Atlanta, that's 117,000 households. Even modest gains in market share will push them past Boise quickly).

And the other problem for Boise is that their entire appeal is based on football success. If they go into a slump -- which admittedly their program has been very consistent over its history -- they lose the national appeal that makes up for their small market.

Boise is a fast growing metro. Having a million people in a decade or so it’s not out place.

The difference between MWC and AAC schools is that at least half of MWC schools are the only game in town and in some cases, the state’s flagship/land grant institution. All AAC schools compete with pro sports teams and/or nearby P5 schools.

Also, just because a metro area is growing doesn’t mean “x” school in the area will automatically convert those new residents into fans. For example, Dallas-Fort Worth will overtake Chicago as the #3 most populous metro area (it’s currently at #4) in the early 2030’s or maybe sooner to 10 million people. But TCU, SMU and UNT will not expand their stadiums to 80k to accommodate all that growth in the area. Those new residents will bring their college/pro teams allegiances with them. A new transplant from suburban Detroit who’s always rooted for Michigan State will not start rooting for SMU just because he moved to the M Streets area (close to campus).

(10-16-2019 10:12 AM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 06:12 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 05:49 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 04:52 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 12:02 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  I think with Hawaii you have to factor in geography. It's one thing to go a state or two out of your footprint; it's another thing entirely to jump half an ocean to add a school. But playing within the parameters of the exercise:

BYU is the obvious bell cow though unless the conference is a P5, they're not interested, thanks for playing. Of the MWC schools, San Diego State and Colorado State are the strongest adds, but don't overlook UNLV (big, nationally relevant and growing market that is already an important sports city and is only getting more so with the Raiders inbound). Otherwise, I don't see any of the others generating serious interest from the P5 or even the AAC, outside a football-only membership for Boise State or Air Force.

You obviously never check the standings in MWC sports or you would not have mentioned CSU. They consistently rank near the bottom in football and basketball . If you are trying to strengthen your conference you don’t want them. Actually the only way you can get Schools in this region is to take at least 3.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Colorado st doesn’t have baseball either. Most of the MWC schools do except them Wyoming and Utah St. Boise just restarted their baseball.

Colorado State is in a good market and a good location with good academics. The right coach can change their football and basketball fortunes, but you can't quick fix that other stuff.

My guess is if baseball was a dealbreaker for admission to a better conference, they'd have a program up and running in record time.

Exactly, CSU is a peer institution to the big public research universities in the AAC and would not be considered academically repugnant by the private schools. They have more alumni in Denver than CU; they've got a beautiful new football stadium.

Honestly, what they need to is to get out of the MWC and differentiate themselves from the nearby MWC programs. They've got everything in place to be a much more successful program than they are.

That would be a mistake from their part. Leave their long time rivals for a conference far-away which has members looking for a P5 invite (remember the Big XII expansion fiasco three years ago?) and risk being left behind with Tulsa, Tulane, East Carolina and whoever gets the call from C-USA? They don’t need to differentiate themselves from other MWC schools. They already have advantages the likes of Wyoming, Nevada and Boise State will never have. What they need again is a visionary like Tom Jurich (he was their AD until Louisville got him in ‘97). They were the original Utah. It had a solid football program while Utah was mostly a mess. Had Jurich stayed and used his skills like he did at Louisville, Colorado State would be with Colorado in the Pac-12 or in the Big XII as the Buffaloes replacement.

(10-15-2019 09:06 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  The schools that would appeal to me the most are as follows:

1. BYU (but only if the school is willing to play games on Sundays if necessary)

2. San Diego State: good all-round sports and academics in a big city

3. Colorado State: growing state could bring some decent media market

4. Boise: primarily for football but an underrated and up-and-coming city

All the others bring various positives and negatives to the table (just like the bottom two-thirds of the American)

Bill, have to disagree about CSU, most non students and alums go for the Buffs. Also, CSU has a culture of losing, you would be as well off with Rice.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(10-16-2019 03:12 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(10-15-2019 09:06 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  The schools that would appeal to me the most are as follows:

1. BYU (but only if the school is willing to play games on Sundays if necessary)

2. San Diego State: good all-round sports and academics in a big city

3. Colorado State: growing state could bring some decent media market

4. Boise: primarily for football but an underrated and up-and-coming city

All the others bring various positives and negatives to the table (just like the bottom two-thirds of the American)

Bill, have to disagree about CSU, most non students and alums go for the Buffs. Also, CSU has a culture of losing, you would be as well off with Rice.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You might be correct, J52. I seem to recall you recently noted you live in a state in the West and, as such, you would be familiar with Colorado (I am not, admittedly).

I like New Mexico - perhaps more than I should.

1. Proper state school.
2. The Pit is an excellent environment, and would be just as rough as the XL was with UConn.
3. Doesn't feel "low rent" when it comes to perception.

FB can be turned around with TV money and 2 good coaching hires.

(10-16-2019 07:47 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I like New Mexico - perhaps more than I should.

1. Proper state school.
2. The Pit is an excellent environment, and would be just as rough as the XL was with UConn.
3. Doesn't feel "low rent" when it comes to perception.

FB can be turned around with TV money and 2 good coaching hires.

TV money isn't the difference there. UNM's athletic department finances are pretty healthy. The difference is that the AAC members that have larger athletic budgets than UNM use a lot more university money to finance athletic department deficit spending, for the purpose of spending more money on football. MWC members like Fresno State and San Diego State also subsidize more to spend more on football. All of that can be seen in the USA Today data at http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/ .

Agreed that The Pit is a great hoops environment. The issue is that UNM (both the university and its donors) has never shown enough interest in building a football program that would consistently be in the top half of their conference or any other G5 conference.

If I was looking to add a member from the Mountain West...

1. Hawaii. Oh wait, they're already a member with us.
2. UNLV, for the basketball tradition and bringing back the good times.
3. Fresno. Former charter member that everyone can get up for.
4. Nevada. Flagship, proximity to Northern California. Miss being with them.
5. Boise. Pumping money into basketball, reviving baseball.
6. Utah State.
7. SJSU. Former charter member whose basketball program - needs lots of work
8. CSU
9. BYU
10. Air Force
11. UNM
12. SDSU - will already have a presence in San Diego in the near future.
13. Wyoming

Surprised that at how many people put SDSU way above Fresno. I'd agree more with Wedge on this. They're comparable peers.

Academically, both are well-funded Cal-State schools.

They both hover around 100 in the Director's Cup standings.

SDSU has the better market. Though they have to share it with pro sports, USD & now UCSD. And San Diego feels like an extension of LA & part of PAC country. Fresno may as well be another state.

SDSU has the edge in basketball. Though they weren't great before Fisher. And Fresno is good for about 20 wins.

I'd take Bulldog football over the Aztecs. Deruyter wasn't head coach material. Put that aside & they're consistently solid. Enough to be considered Boise's primary rival. I like what Rocky Long's doing. A lot. It's just that Tedford has a better program.

(10-17-2019 02:09 PM)ManleyPointer Wrote:  Surprised that at how many people put SDSU way above Fresno. I'd agree more with Wedge on this. They're comparable peers.

Academically, both are well-funded Cal-State schools.

They both hover around 100 in the Director's Cup standings.

SDSU has the better market. Though they have to share it with pro sports, USD & now UCSD. And San Diego feels like an extension of LA & part of PAC country. Fresno may as well be another state.

SDSU has the edge in basketball. Though they weren't great before Fisher. And Fresno is good for about 20 wins.

I'd take Bulldog football over the Aztecs. Deruyter wasn't head coach material. Put that aside & they're consistently solid. Enough to be considered Boise's primary rival. I like what Rocky Long's doing. A lot. It's just that Tedford has a better program.

You might be overplaying SDSU's in-market competition. The only pro sports team is the Padres, and usually by the time Aztecs football is starting, they're already playing out the string. USD is a low-level WCC school and while everyone's rightfully in love with UCSD's potential, they're a D2 moveup in a one-bid conference.

Better market, better history, better support, better facilities (especially if/when they build their football stadium). You may be right that people are underestimating Fresno's attractiveness, but they are not going to be considered equals by conferences looking to expand or backfill.

(10-17-2019 02:09 PM)ManleyPointer Wrote:  Surprised that at how many people put SDSU way above Fresno. I'd agree more with Wedge on this. They're comparable peers.

Academically, both are well-funded Cal-State schools.

They both hover around 100 in the Director's Cup standings.

SDSU has the better market. Though they have to share it with pro sports, USD & now UCSD. And San Diego feels like an extension of LA & part of PAC country. Fresno may as well be another state.

SDSU has the edge in basketball. Though they weren't great before Fisher. And Fresno is good for about 20 wins.

I'd take Bulldog football over the Aztecs. Deruyter wasn't head coach material. Put that aside & they're consistently solid. Enough to be considered Boise's primary rival. I like what Rocky Long's doing. A lot. It's just that Tedford has a better program.

I agree that Fresno is like another state. Or even another region.

But San Diego is definitely different from LA.

First, it's a LOT slower pace of living. It's still got the vibe of a beach town (albeit one that's a bit overgrown). It's even slower than comparably sized Midwestern cities. LA is more go-go-go like other huge cities.

Second, There's 100,000 active-duty military in San Diego, and 250,000 retired military. The average household is about 3-3.5 people, so that means about 1/3 of San Diego County households are military families.

As a result of the military, San Diego County has always been a lot whiter than LA. It's even whiter than Orange County, and has fewer Hispanic whites too. In fact, I think it's one of the whitest big cities in the USA (after Boston and Seattle). The Census Bureau says that San Diego County is 76% white, 12% Asian, and 5% black.

And San Diego is definitely not PAC country - not even close. I lived there for 3 years and ran into more Michigan fans than UCLA or USC fans.

(10-18-2019 03:27 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(10-17-2019 02:09 PM)ManleyPointer Wrote:  Surprised that at how many people put SDSU way above Fresno. I'd agree more with Wedge on this. They're comparable peers.

Academically, both are well-funded Cal-State schools.

They both hover around 100 in the Director's Cup standings.

SDSU has the better market. Though they have to share it with pro sports, USD & now UCSD. And San Diego feels like an extension of LA & part of PAC country. Fresno may as well be another state.

SDSU has the edge in basketball. Though they weren't great before Fisher. And Fresno is good for about 20 wins.

I'd take Bulldog football over the Aztecs. Deruyter wasn't head coach material. Put that aside & they're consistently solid. Enough to be considered Boise's primary rival. I like what Rocky Long's doing. A lot. It's just that Tedford has a better program.

I agree that Fresno is like another state. Or even another region.

But San Diego is definitely different from LA.

First, it's a LOT slower pace of living. It's still got the vibe of a beach town (albeit one that's a bit overgrown). It's even slower than comparably sized Midwestern cities. LA is more go-go-go like other huge cities.

Second, There's 100,000 active-duty military in San Diego, and 250,000 retired military. The average household is about 3-3.5 people, so that means about 1/3 of San Diego County households are military families.

As a result of the military, San Diego County has always been a lot whiter than LA. It's even whiter than Orange County, and has fewer Hispanic whites too. In fact, I think it's one of the whitest big cities in the USA (after Boston and Seattle). The Census Bureau says that San Diego County is 76% white, 12% Asian, and 5% black.

And San Diego is definitely not PAC country - not even close. I lived there for 3 years and ran into more Michigan fans than UCLA or USC fans.

Where are you getting those numbers? As a native Californian I was shocked to see those numbers since San Diego is on the Mexican border but according to Wikipedia, Hispanics represent 29% of the city of San Diego’s population while they represent 32% of San Diego County. So San Diego is not that white unless you’re counting Hispanics as white which it might happen in the future (Italian-Americans were not considered “white” until recently) but that’s another topic for another day.

As for Cal State-San Diego, I don’t understand the fascination people have with them. They’re an underachiever, they always have been. It’s football program started seeing some success once TCU, Utah and BYU were on the way out. They were supposed to be what Boise State and UCF became but somehow they always fail to deliver on those expectations. They only made it to the Sweet Sixteen twice in Fisher’s 18 seasons and that’s going to be pretty much their ceiling now that he’s gone. Yes, San Diego is one of the nicest locations in the U.S. but SDSU hasn’t capitalized on that yet and the same goes to UNLV but at least they have a NC in basketball. Maybe the new stadium will help but I won’t hold my breath on that one.