Topic: H-D: Chuck Landon: No pot of gold at end of Big East rainbow

[_sturt_]

From what I have heard, Hamrick believes that if we move up now, we will be stuck in the bottom to middle of the BE with no hope of ever progressing up.  We will have the worst facilities, lowest budget, worst recruiting area, etc.  Losing the ability to take props is also a big factor, especially in Doc's eyes.  Hamrick wants to stay were we are, build all of our planned facilities, continue to take props, win championships, build support, and see if we want to move up in 5 years.

(1) So, if that's the case, and if IM4's reporting that Hamrick has been making overtures to Big East from day one... who's right?

(2) "Progressing up"... to what?!? SEC? ACC?

As idealistic as any of us may be, I don't think anyone is under any illusions... our best case scenario is to be competing in the highest-regarded conference of the Group of Five, and thus in a legit position to annually compete for the BCS slot.

That can't happen if we're playing Sun Belt schools.

(3) "See if we want to move up in 5 years"... lol.

So, let me get this straight.

We can't compete against Houston and ECU and Cincinnati type schools because we don't have the money and facilities.

So, we're going to drop back to a lesser level of competition where we'll get cut to, at best, half of the TV money, with LESS bowl opportunity... and yet competing against schools whose budgets are currently in the ballpark with ours, and expecting to DOMINATE them?

But wait... we've been competing, even being in contention in November at times for winning our division... and, according to many if not most on this board... that's happened in spite of us having inferior coaching since Pruett left... so how is it that we now conclude we can't compete?

And moreover, if private donations matters so much, then logic dictates we should expect to be in the middle of the pack with our new Sun Belt peers... not dominating.

Methinks some people are, instead, scavenging for excuses, and this supposed vision of Hamrick's... assuming it's truthfully being reported... is, in reality, full of incoherent assumptions.

[_sturt_]

Sturt:

a). Your demonstrations are opinion which assumes power and leverage that does not exist.

Avoidant.

Flat out avoidant.

It is not "opinion" that the BCS revenue system is currently being negotiated.

It is opinion, but informed opinion, that the revenue system ultimately will be decided based on some kind of democratic vote... unless you can demonstrate why you would think there would be a big dog in the room that gets to make the final decision, you're left with that conclusion.

It is fact that those schools set to compete in MWC and Big East have historically ended seasons over the last decade at the top of the heap of those schools who will now compete for a BCS slot assigned to the 60-something Group of Five schools.

It is opinion, but informed opinion, that the schools who are not part of the MWC and Big East have reason to want that BCS revenue system to essentially be a socialistic one, dividing the entire pie equally, or near equally.

It is fact... just doing the math... that we are in a position to forge a majority of the vote... either aligning with the other schools in the other conferences, and making that socialistic distribution happen, or alternatively, getting Big East and MWC to 32 schools total so that they can have their preference.

It is fact... just doing the math... that the BCS revenues are significant... not so much when compared to the power conferences' take, but certainly so when compared to whatever other sources of income that the Group of Five schools have.

Either stop the avoidance and deal with the substance, or exit the discussion.

b). My opinion, however Hamrick, et.al. have stated that we are in a better position than those who have bailed on CUSA to the BE.  To say Hamrick believes otherwise because he made inquiries and performed due diligence is simply twisting words.

I've only asked for you to reconcile your own words.

And let's not pretend to be ignorant... Hamrick is in a delicate position. He can't come out and say like you or I, "This sucks." He is paid to stay positive publicly. To go negative publicly is counterproductive. But then, if he, and more importantly Kopp, sense that the public is okay with it all, that gives them license to be okay with it. Hopefully their integrity to look out for Marshall drives them to do the right thing regardless, but that shouldn't be counted on.

c). My opinion, and in my opinion the opinion of most.  I don't think anyone thinks we made a move down by moving from the MAC to CUSA or that the perception was that ECU. So Miss, etc. were drug down by us joining.

Recently, I worried aloud that I wasn't seeing people post here and giving an amen to my assertions. whf responded that maybe they weren't responding because they mainly agree with what I'm saying.

I don't pretend to know. Hard to say where "the opinion of most" stands.

I agree with you that we did not make a move down by moving from the MAC to CUSA... I'm not sure why you bring it up, though... this is clearly the opposite kind of thing... though technically standing still, the reality is that we appear to be set to move down by virtue of the fact that our peers are all moving away from us, and we're left to compete with Sun Belt type schools.

d). Satisfaction should be tempered by reality.  We are in the best position we can be.  We have a solid, Southern-based...It's all been said before.  No one is pursuing us and no one has the power or leverage to pursuade large groups to do our bidding to our benefit.  It is what it is.  I cannot wait for football season.

To my knowledge... correct me if I'm wrong... and I mean that... no one in a position to know (Hamrick or Kopp) has yet said publicly that we have no hope at this point to keep up with our current peers and graduate to playing in the Big East. I agree that it is probable that no one is pursuing us at this point, but I disagree... for reasons I've made clear above... that we do not have leverage.  You're simply avoiding fact and simple logic that demonstrate otherwise.

We do have leverage.

What we might not have is an administration willing to spend the necessary time and/or political capital to get a majority together and make the BCS revenue issue work to our advantage.

And my fear is that that might be the case if they perceive the base is so easily persuaded that competing with Sun Belt schools is better than competing with our current peers. So, nothing against you personally, but it would be terribly unfortunate to Marshall's athletics future if indeed most fans think as you do... at least, at this point, prior to the BCS revenue system having been established.

[Penn2moss]

I don't even know how to talk to this guy.  Every thread he posts in he has a different opinion from everyone else and mocks you for suggesting that he might not have every possibility figured out.

There was a time when Marshall moved up from 1-AA to the MAC.  Why were we able to make the transition better than any team ever has?  Because we didn't have 1-AA talent.  We had transfers like Moss, Kresser, etc. that were legitimate BCS caliber players.  We had more talent from day one in the MAC.  Why did we have more talent?  we had an advantage that they didn't have, we could take transfers that could play right away.  We also had be far the best facilities and the best fan support.  We kept that momentum rolling and dominated the MAC for years.  Things started to slow down toward the end of the Pruett years.  We were mediocre at best when moving to CUSA.  Instead of walking in as one of the best squads on day one, we walked in as one of the worst.  We have possibly the worst facilities in the conference.  A decade later, we are the definition of a CUSA mediocre team.  If we move up as we are now, use the vision money to buyout of the conference, cancel the facility upgrades, we will continue to be mediocre for a long time to come.

I know you disagree with this, but I truly believe we have the best opportunity to bust the BCS where we are.  All of the CUSA teams that moved up will be removed from the prop pool.  We can easily take 5 4 stars every year in our current position.  We will never be in the position to land that kind of talent without props and the teams in the BE can't either.  We have a big advantage over the BE just like we had over the MAC.  Lets stay here.

[field pass]

Hold up. First, who is bundling Hallmark with Fox Sports Ohio (et al) in a sports bundle? I don't think that's happening, but I can only speak for what I know here in Southeast Texas... I have Dish, and the local cable is Time Warner... in either case, the sports bundle is, in fact, a sports bundle.

But second and more importantly, if this cable/satellite subscription money is so significant, how do you square that assertion with the fact that the Big East's (essentially now CUSA schools plus a few BE holdovers) proposed NBC contract is approximately equivalent to CUSA's contract?

You can't because it's not (significant). In fact, interestingly, here in Texas, everyone thought the Longhorn Network was going to be a veritable money tree for UT, partially for the reason you've suggested... that there would be a stream of basic cable/satellite income, plus the advertising dollars, with ESPN (which manages the network) getting their cut. Turns out that it's been muchadoaboutnothing, at least so far.

I think I just offered verifiable information to the contrary... I'll wait to see if you can find any other possible support for your assertion, but until then, this is just more empty optimism.


I've acknowledged that there are opportunities for individual schools to ascend to higher levels of competition.

It's ancillary to the core of this discussion, but worth noting that while NCAA football is popular, it hasn't grown appreciably in popularity so much as baseball has begun to decrease in popularity. (And that's not just me talking... I've provided an independent source that says as much.)

People have their various interests and sub-interests. For me, sports has been a constant interest over my lifetime, but moreover, this conference membership thing is not some area that I've happened to engage recently, but rather something I've been focused upon for as long as I can remember. Additionally, I have close relatives who have been employed in media... there were Broadcasting magazines in my house that I read regularly when I was in junior high and high school... so again, none of this is new territory of interest for me. I certainly bow to whatever wisdom that dshoe would bring to a discussion here, or Dave Weekley would... I don't have that level of insight... but for someone who hasn't been specifically employed in that industry, and as someone who has regularly had friendships with guys like that, I feel about as well-informed about this area as anyone could be who isn't getting a paycheck from the industry.

Point being, I'm not sure what you want me to glean from researching the Big East, but I can tell you that I've been paying fairly-close attention from the time of the Eastern Eight and the days when the Lambert Trophy was a big deal. Not only have I lived through it, I've made it a point to read extensively and to understand what was happening.

Maybe you're failing to understand that I do NOT disagree that markets change and schools change....

"....But this is not about what's possible, it's about what's likely.

And history, not rose-colored glasses, says it is (a) likely that, if surrounded by Sun Belt and FBS-newbie conference peers, our next TV contract is going to be similar to what Sun Belt schools have always fetched, and (b) likely that other conferences' schools are going to be in a decidedly better position to claim the BCS slot, which thusly puts them in a decidedly better position to reap that substantial reward... and assuming that we allow them to get what they want, gives those schools in MWC and Big East the financial influx to put some additional distance between them and us.

This is about whether we should be content at this stage or whether we should be investing all of our available energies into putting pressure on our administration to do what needs to be done to keep us in a relationship with our current peers.

Why wouldn't they do that naturally?... why wouldn't Kopp, in particular, be working toward that end?

I don't doubt for a second that he's good-intentioned. But he's a short-timer like practically any president at this level, and if left without impetus to do otherwise, he can be much easier satiated by the short-term money that will come from the exit fees... the long-term isn't as important to him as it is to us. Moreover, he only has so much political capital to spend. He only has so much time to invest. Without palpable pressure from his base, he's not likely to step up."

I have a few brief minutes to jump on here per day.  I dont have time to go back and dig uo the artucles ive read in the past 12 months.  I can tell you what ive read and encourage you to go look for it...youre welcome to claim victory if you want...its not my job to educate the masses in whats going on...they are bundling the sports cable channels in a way that it encourages people that dont have intetest in the sports into buying them in a bundle.

its a new thing, its a bubble in a sense imo. and the money is trickling down the chain quite effectively from what ive observed.  I cant bat back all the balls youve fired into my side if the court sturt..lol...sorry.

[The Greenhouse Effect]

Stewart had Dr. Perry for poly sci 101 from there on it was all downhill for the poor guy as evidenced here.

[field pass]

all conferences...will be making more tv revenue in the next few years regardless of if theyve enhanced their membership or stayed the same. more if enhanced....if youve hemoraged like we have you might be able to stay the same thanks to more tv revenue available...but its more like the old saying...if your standing still youre falling behind.  but I think there is a chance we might not have to get less ...and if we do I thinkour contracts will be better after odu and charlotte get established more at this level.

im also not worried about being greedy.  if northern illinois did well and we did well in the 90s....I think we can compete and have a shot at rankings and a playoff spot...with a limited budget.  I think we need to keep helping kids with the prop program and the help program to help these kids and let them help us...I think we need ti collect exit fee money rather than pay $8m to give up props, get into a more difficult path to the playoff just to play houston and ucf which are getting ready to make a run at epic irrelevance the next few years...

[_sturt_]

I don't even know how to talk to this guy.  Every thread he posts in he has a different opinion from everyone else and mocks you for suggesting that he might not have every possibility figured out.

There was a time when Marshall moved up from 1-AA to the MAC.  Why were we able to make the transition better than any team ever has?  Because we didn't have 1-AA talent.  We had transfers like Moss, Kresser, etc. that were legitimate BCS caliber players.  We had more talent from day one in the MAC.  Why did we have more talent?  we had an advantage that they didn't have, we could take transfers that could play right away.  We also had be far the best facilities and the best fan support.  We kept that momentum rolling and dominated the MAC for years.  Things started to slow down toward the end of the Pruett years.  We were mediocre at best when moving to CUSA.  Instead of walking in as one of the best squads on day one, we walked in as one of the worst.  We have possibly the worst facilities in the conference.  A decade later, we are the definition of a CUSA mediocre team.  If we move up as we are now, use the vision money to buyout of the conference, cancel the facility upgrades, we will continue to be mediocre for a long time to come.

I know you disagree with this, but I truly believe we have the best opportunity to bust the BCS where we are.  All of the CUSA teams that moved up will be removed from the prop pool.  We can easily take 5 4 stars every year in our current position.  We will never be in the position to land that kind of talent without props and the teams in the BE can't either.  We have a big advantage over the BE just like we had over the MAC.  Lets stay here.

I appreciate the coherent reply.

So you say that being able to take 4-star props in 1-AA when our MAC competition could not made all of the difference... and that the MAC began catching up with us toward the end and that we have been mediocre in CUSA because all of them could also take props... correct?

Is it fair for me to give you a list of names?

Tyrell Smith. Josh Johnson. Darius Passmore. Jimmy Rogers. O.J. Murdock. Dexter Moody. Brian Robinson. Travon Van. Kevin Grooms. Amos Leggett.

Referencing Rivals and Scout, those are the 10 recruits since 2002 that Marshall has had that show up as having been rated 4-star.

How many of those guys are playing in the NFL today? How many of those guys even made all-conference? Started more than 2 seasons-worth of games? Even just stayed on the roster for 2 seasons?

4-star recruits that come to Marshall mostly have not panned out as meeting the expectations that go with their level of talent... sometimes, if not quite often, that's because off-the-field issues that confound their getting on the field... sometimes it could be a golden-boy state of mind that keeps them from working as hard as the lesser-starred peers.

So, while it's a more credible argument than just saying, "Well, I just think we'll do better," once again history suggests it's not exactly correct to say that that's going to make all the difference.

What you're saying is that you'd rather have 1/2 to 1/3 of the current TV income, a reduction in bowl opportunities, and a reduction in national reputation in return to have a few new props show up on the February recruit list every year, mostly 3 star guys, though maybe occasionally getting a 4-star prop... never mind how only a percentage of those... history shows... will actually get to school, stay in school, make the grades and stay on the field.

So I guess this is where we just have a difference of opinion. I'd rather maintain approximately the same money, same bowl opps, and same national reputation than to lose so much of that in exchange for a few props, a percentage of whom will ever even play ball for us, and a smaller percentage of whom will ever make a difference.

[_sturt_]

I have a few brief minutes to jump on here per day.  I dont have time to go back and dig uo the artucles ive read in the past 12 months.  I can tell you what ive read and encourage you to go look for it...youre welcome to claim victory if you want...its not my job to educate the masses in whats going on...they are bundling the sports cable channels in a way that it encourages people that dont have intetest in the sports into buying them in a bundle.

its a new thing, its a bubble in a sense imo. and the money is trickling down the chain quite effectively from what ive observed.  I cant bat back all the balls youve fired into my side if the court sturt..lol...sorry.

I've found that there are things called search engines here online that, if I use the right keywords, I can often relocate things I've read previously, or if not that exact something, other sources that give some kind of similar insights. Just takes a little thought on my part to figure out the right keywords... but I highly recommend it to those who want to support an argument, as opposed to merely making an argument.  :P

[_sturt_]

Stewart had Dr. Perry for poly sci 101 from there on it was all downhill for the poor guy as evidenced here.

Hehe... I couldn't agree more.

[_sturt_]

all conferences...will be making more tv revenue in the next few years regardless of if theyve enhanced their membership or stayed the same. more if enhanced....if youve hemoraged like we have you might be able to stay the same thanks to more tv revenue available...but its more like the old saying...if your standing still youre falling behind.  but I think there is a chance we might not have to get less ...and if we do I thinkour contracts will be better after odu and charlotte get established more at this level.

im also not worried about being greedy.  if northern illinois did well and we did well in the 90s....I think we can compete and have a shot at rankings and a playoff spot...with a limited budget.  I think we need to keep helping kids with the prop program and the help program to help these kids and let them help us...I think we need ti collect exit fee money rather than pay $8m to give up props, get into a more difficult path to the playoff just to play houston and ucf which are getting ready to make a run at epic irrelevance the next few years...

Non-factor if we vote right now, having not yet received an invite, to reduce exit fees for all future schools down to $1.00. That would be the smart play.

[ZackUSAF82]

_sturt_, if you dedicated half the time you do to posting about conference realignment to talking about Marshall athletics I might actually read your posts.  I just have a hard time reading post after post after post after post about the same crap but spun in a different way with different supporting evidence all leading to the same conclusion.  I honestly can't tell you the last time I read a post about you in regards to what is going on with the Herd outside of this realignment crap.  I understand it's your passion and you want us to move up but good Lord man, you can only beat a dead horse so many times before it gets really really REALLLLLLLY old...

[_sturt_]

_sturt_, if you dedicated half the time you do to posting about conference realignment to talking about Marshall athletics I might actually read your posts.  I just have a hard time reading post after post after post after post about the same crap but spun in a different way with different supporting evidence all leading to the same conclusion.  I honestly can't tell you the last time I read a post about you in regards to what is going on with the Herd outside of this realignment crap.  I understand it's your passion and you want us to move up but good Lord man, you can only beat a dead horse so many times before it gets really really REALLLLLLLY old...

Zack, you care about what you care about... and I don't complain about it... you read what you want to read... doesn't make me jump for joy if it's something I wrote, doesn't discourage me if you never in your life read another post I've written...

Clearly, I consider this to be an issue that either puts Marshall in an environment for long-term success or sets Marshall back at least 20 years. Clearly, I'm trying to demonstrate that this remains a worthwhile issue for fans to engage, and to give some rationale for how things can still work out in Marshall's favor... and simultaneously, why it's irrational to be content with the situation at this juncture.

My question to you is why do you care to complain? What's the point? I grant you the space to comment and write about what matters to you. Why do you suggest I should feel bad that I do the same?

[Penn2moss]

I appreciate the coherent reply.

So you say that being able to take 4-star props in 1-AA when our MAC competition could not made all of the difference... and that the MAC began catching up with us toward the end and that we have been mediocre in CUSA because all of them could also take props... correct?

Is it fair for me to give you a list of names?

Tyrell Smith. Josh Johnson. Darius Passmore. Jimmy Rogers. O.J. Murdock. Dexter Moody. Brian Robinson. Travon Van. Kevin Grooms. Amos Leggett.

Referencing Rivals and Scout, those are the 10 recruits since 2002 that Marshall has had that show up as having been rated 4-star.

How many of those guys are playing in the NFL today? How many of those guys even made all-conference? Started more than 2 seasons-worth of games? Even just stayed on the roster for 2 seasons?

4-star recruits that come to Marshall mostly have not panned out as meeting the expectations that go with their level of talent... sometimes, if not quite often, that's because off-the-field issues that confound their getting on the field... sometimes it could be a golden-boy state of mind that keeps them from working as hard as the lesser-starred peers.

So, while it's a more credible argument than just saying, "Well, I just think we'll do better," once again history suggests it's not exactly correct to say that that's going to make all the difference.

What you're saying is that you'd rather have 1/2 to 1/3 of the current TV income, a reduction in bowl opportunities, and a reduction in national reputation in return to have a few new props show up on the February recruit list every year, mostly 3 star guys, though maybe occasionally getting a 4-star prop... never mind how only a percentage of those... history shows... will actually get to school, stay in school, make the grades and stay on the field.

So I guess this is where we just have a difference of opinion. I'd rather maintain approximately the same money, same bowl opps, and same national reputation than to lose so much of that in exchange for a few props, a percentage of whom will ever even play ball for us, and a smaller percentage of whom will ever make a difference.

First of all, I did not say we were better because of props.  I said transfers.

You can say what you want about props, but a team with 4 star talent will beat a team with 2 star talent almost every time.  Yea a list of 4 stars does not look that impressive considered to the tremendously more 2 and 3 stars we have had.  The real fact is we have not had many 4 stars at all.  Going forward, Grooms looks to be the best RB we have had in years and Legget redshirted.

We have had many successful prop stories by the way.

[_sturt_]

First of all, I did not say we were better because of props.  I said transfers.

You can say what you want about props, but a team with 4 star talent will beat a team with 2 star talent almost every time.  

True. But then, you have to actually get the 4-star talent on the field... and to stay on the field for, at least, a season, if not two, if not three. When you get 4-star talent that has either grade problems or character problems or both, it often ends up being better to have 3-star talent, wouldn't you agree?

Yea a list of 4 stars does not look that impressive considered to the tremendously more 2 and 3 stars we have had.  The real fact is we have not had many 4 stars at all.  Going forward, Grooms looks to be the best RB we have had in years and Legget redshirted.

We have had many successful prop stories by the way.

Indeed, we have... but then, most of those were 3-star talent... a category which, supposedly, we ought to be able to compete for and gain a nice haul anyway... no?

[field pass]

I've found that there are things called search engines here online that, if I use the right keywords, I can often relocate things I've read previously, or if not that exact something, other sources that give some kind of similar insights. Just takes a little thought on my part to figure out the right keywords... but I highly recommend it to those who want to support an argument, as opposed to merely making an argument.  :P

lol...ok thanks

[_sturt_]

"...they are bundling the sports cable channels in a way that it encourages people that dont have intetest in the sports into buying them in a bundle."

So, out of sheer curiosity, I decided to google...

cable satellite sports bundle trends

...and what I found, fp, was that you've evidently been reading headlines but not the articles themselves.

Articles that talk about non-sports programming being bundled with sports programming are talking more precisely about how non-sports programming is bundled specifically with ESPN in the basic cable package... not an extra.

That is ... not CBS-SN, not the Fox regionals, not NBC-Comcast.

Does serious damage to the assertion that the lesser-knowns are poised to deliver all of this money to their affiliated conferences... as-if we didn't already know that based on the NBC-Comcast offer to the schools-formerly-known-as-CUSA.

[field pass]

"...they are bundling the sports cable channels in a way that it encourages people that dont have intetest in the sports into buying them in a bundle."

So, out of sheer curiosity, I decided to google...

cable satellite sports bundle trends

...and what I found, fp, was that you've evidently been reading headlines but not the articles themselves.

Articles that talk about non-sports programming being bundled with sports programming are talking more precisely about how non-sports programming is bundled specifically with ESPN in the basic cable package... not an extra.

That is ... not CBS-SN, not the Fox regionals, not NBC-Comcast.

Does serious damage to the assertion that the lesser-knowns are poised to deliver all of this money to their affiliated conferences... as-if we didn't already know that based on the NBC-Comcast offer to the schools-formerly-known-as-CUSA.

sturt...yer a jerk...youve been making assertiins akl aling that youve read everythung there is to read.  I read several entire sports article about it...bundeling and forcing people to pay for things they dont watch....talked about ncaa football #2 behind nfl...talked about how sports is close to or more than 50% of all cable tv watched...

my only point to begin with was that the amount if money made on college football cable broadcasting has increased and bc of that nearly every conference is increasing revenue frim it...even mid majors....

you disagreed with me....

just leave me alone moving forward...please...

[_sturt_]

Good friend of mine in college was famous for saying, "[sturt], you're not a jerk. You just do jerk things."... lol... guilty-as-charged, I suppose.

fp, it's nothing personal... never is.

I do, however, think when someone volleys some point, they ought to either be prepared to back it up, or be prepared to be challenged.

It's just the nature of debate. And debate is good, that is, as long as it stays substantive and doesn't go personal. Debate helps us cut through the fog and see things for how they are.

As stated in so many words to Zack above, if the topic doesn't interest you, don't let me slow you down.... pass it on by. But for those who see the weight and importance of this topic, if they stop to read this thread, they'll see it being taken that seriously, and will understand how, for Marshall fans, this is exactly the wrong moment to be content.

[HerdHead]

Good friend of mine in college was famous for saying, "[sturt], you're not a jerk. You just do jerk things."

Your friend was half-right.

[shilolg]

^^^^ agree

[_sturt_]

Your friend was half-right.

Kind of you to say so, Head, but in spite of your relentlessly positive attitude toward me, I admit that truly I do jerk-things on occasion.

And you can be sure, that the attitude you take is mutual.  :-*