Loyola to Valley

[rlh04d]

As one other note to my reply to Frank:

I generally feel like major city universities are best for graduate studies rather than undergraduate, because of the number of college graduates who already migrate to the biggest cities for work after college. Now, graduate studies are incredibly important for a university from a money standpoint, and this tends to turn these universities into incredible academic schools with very wealthy alumni bases. It does not, however, turn them into great athletic schools ... because in sports, most people cheer for the school they went to for their undergraduate degree (where they were in school for longer and of partying age) rather than for their graduate degree(s) (shorter time frame, older, often times working). Northwestern is probably a great example of this ... incredible academics, incredible demographics, God awful athletics. I identify myself as an FSU fan based on my undergraduate degree ... I do not cheer for Oklahoma despite getting my Master's from there. If they're playing, I'll watch them and obviously prefer they win over a school I have no attachment to at all, but they're not who I cheer for on a regular basis.

In all honesty, look at the biggest cities in the US, and tell me how many schools from those cities have good athletics. Obviously USC and UCLA are the two that jump out to me, both from LA. NYC doesn't have any good teams -- St. John's is the best. Northwestern is the best Chicago has to offer. Houston is a decent college athletic program, but still well down the list in Texas. Philadelphia has a couple okay programs -- Villanova, Saint Joseph's, and Temple chief among them, but none of those are eye-poppingly successful. Phoenix doesn't have anything. San Antonio -- pft. San Diego? Jacksonville? Indianapolis has Indiana. Austin? San Francisco? Columbus? Dallas FW? San Jose? Charlotte -- one of the biggest basketball states in the country and Charlotte still isn't within 2 hours of a major college program. Detroit. El Paso. Memphis does okay with their name-sake, but they're still a ways down the list of best athletic programs in the NCAA. Boston doesn't have squat. Seattle is probably the best outside of LA and Indianapolis with the University of Washington. Denver. Baltimore at least has UMD 30 miles away. Washington, D.C. has some pretty decent basketball teams around them, primarily Georgetown. Nashville has Vanderbilt. Finally we get to Louisville with its namesake. Milwaukee's best is Marquette. Portland has nothing. And at #30 we have Oklahoma City, which has an okay program.

I've just listed the 30 biggest cities in the US, and despite containing a huge share of the country's population, they amount to these teams among the greats of college athletics: USC, UCLA, Indiana, Houston, Villanova, Saint Joseph's, Temple, the University of Washington, Georgetown, Louisville, Marquette, and Oklahoma City -- and almost half of those are in the 20-30 range, while five come from LA and Philadelphia. Only five of those are in major conferences, and the A-10/Big East account for most of the rest (and thus only able to be successful in basketball). I went through those pretty fast, so I might have missed one or two, but where are these programs that are benefiting so much from being in big markets?

Even when you get into the discussion about the B1G, as you mentioned with regards to Tallahassee for FSU, it's about the STATE, not the city. NYC is the only city the B1G is trying to gain, and your demographics point about Rutgers is incredibly valid there. However, the B1G is a different animal from the MVC to such a degree that it's not even worth comparing them.

College programs historically develop best away from major markets -- likely because college students are more likely to be connected to their universities more when they're away from home, away from outside distractions, and not working. Or maybe universities outside of cities just need athletics more to drive enrollment than ones in cities do. Colleges in big cities tend to have the "commuter school" label attached to them more as well. When colleges do develop decently inside of large cities, it's often because the city isn't so large that it has other major sports programs as competition -- this is where you get into Creighton in Omaha, Wichita, Raleigh, Tulsa, Miami, etc. And despite your point about "small markets," Creighton and WSU are both in top 50 cities nationally, and as I've just shown, very few of the top 50 cities have good college teams.

Either way, the development of nearly every major college program in our country in either basketball or football disagrees with the idea that the market they are directly in is important, until you're looking at television deals which generally reflects their ability to be important in the entire state.

This is where professional and collegiate sports are different. Professional sports usually needs a huge city. College sports might just be the opposite.

[rlh04d]

East Carolina (a school with a great fan base in a small market - basically, the football version of Wichita State)

Also, while I think you are extremely knowledgeable about most matters dealing with realignment, you're out of your damn mind if you think East Carolina is comparable to Wichita State

You might want to learn a little more about Wichita. East Carolina in Greenville has a metro area of less than 200k, with a city population of 86k. Wichita's city population alone is nearly 400k, and the metro area is closing in on 700k. Even if you just go by media market size, Greenville is at #100, Wichita at #66. Wichita's TV market ranking is steadily increasing, as well -- one spot each of the last three years.

Wichita is not a small market. It is not Chicago by any means, but it's the 49th biggest city in the country. I'd also argue that it's probably worth looking at population growth when you're considering the long-term health of a region. Chicago's population is actually down pretty significantly over the last ten years. Wichita's population grew by 11.1% between 2000 and 2010.

I don't know in what world you think the 49th biggest city in the US is comparable to a city outside of the top 300 Don't buy into this small market thing.

You also made a comment about Creighton's fanbase which I took to meaning that you believe Creighton's is significantly larger because of their average attendance. I think this is false. Wichita State regularly has more revenue than Creighton, specifically because they charge more per ticket. It's pretty simple economics that says if you drop ticket prices more fans show up. Wichita State could easily average a sell out of the Intrust Bank Arena across town, which seats over 15k, if they lowered prices accordingly. You don't just look at Creighton having 17k fans at a game and compare that to WSU with 10.5k and pretend like that's a fair comparison. I don't know how much the average price difference is, but I know I can buy Creighton season tickets for $200 right now, and the cheapest season tickets I can find for WSU are $275. Creighton has great fan support, but the difference isn't as large as 16.6k-to-10.4k per game average would imply. They're also in a larger market, but Omaha is only 20k larger than Wichita.

Google's Population Data

[Dean Wormer]

As one other note to my reply to Frank:

I generally feel like major city universities are best for graduate studies rather than undergraduate, because of the number of college graduates who already migrate to the biggest cities for work after college. Now, graduate studies are incredibly important for a university from a money standpoint, and this tends to turn these universities into incredible academic schools with very wealthy alumni bases. It does not, however, turn them into great athletic schools ... because in sports, most people cheer for the school they went to for their undergraduate degree (where they were in school for longer and of partying age) rather than for their graduate degree(s) (shorter time frame, older, often times working). Northwestern is probably a great example of this ... incredible academics, incredible demographics, God awful athletics. I identify myself as an FSU fan based on my undergraduate degree ... I do not cheer for Oklahoma despite getting my Master's from there. If they're playing, I'll watch them and obviously prefer they win over a school I have no attachment to at all, but they're not who I cheer for on a regular basis.

In all honesty, look at the biggest cities in the US, and tell me how many schools from those cities have good athletics. Obviously USC and UCLA are the two that jump out to me, both from LA. NYC doesn't have any good teams -- St. John's is the best. Northwestern is the best Chicago has to offer. Houston is a decent college athletic program, but still well down the list in Texas. Philadelphia has a couple okay programs -- Villanova, Saint Joseph's, and Temple chief among them, but none of those are eye-poppingly successful. Phoenix doesn't have anything. San Antonio -- pft. San Diego? Jacksonville? Indianapolis has Indiana. Austin? San Francisco? Columbus? Dallas FW? San Jose? Charlotte -- one of the biggest basketball states in the country and Charlotte still isn't within 2 hours of a major college program. Detroit. El Paso. Memphis does okay with their name-sake, but they're still a ways down the list of best athletic programs in the NCAA. Boston doesn't have squat. Seattle is probably the best outside of LA and Indianapolis with the University of Washington. Denver. Baltimore at least has UMD 30 miles away. Washington, D.C. has some pretty decent basketball teams around them, primarily Georgetown. Nashville has Vanderbilt. Finally we get to Louisville with its namesake. Milwaukee's best is Marquette. Portland has nothing. And at #30 we have Oklahoma City, which has an okay program.

I've just listed the 30 biggest cities in the US, and despite containing a huge share of the country's population, they amount to these teams among the greats of college athletics: USC, UCLA, Indiana, Houston, Villanova, Saint Joseph's, Temple, the University of Washington, Georgetown, Louisville, Marquette, and Oklahoma City -- and almost half of those are in the 20-30 range, while five come from LA and Philadelphia. Only five of those are in major conferences, and the A-10/Big East account for most of the rest (and thus only able to be successful in basketball). I went through those pretty fast, so I might have missed one or two, but where are these programs that are benefiting so much from being in big markets?

Even when you get into the discussion about the B1G, as you mentioned with regards to Tallahassee for FSU, it's about the STATE, not the city. NYC is the only city the B1G is trying to gain, and your demographics point about Rutgers is incredibly valid there. However, the B1G is a different animal from the MVC to such a degree that it's not even worth comparing them.

College programs historically develop best away from major markets -- likely because college students are more likely to be connected to their universities more when they're away from home, away from outside distractions, and not working. Or maybe universities outside of cities just need athletics more to drive enrollment than ones in cities do. Colleges in big cities tend to have the "commuter school" label attached to them more as well. When colleges do develop decently inside of large cities, it's often because the city isn't so large that it has other major sports programs as competition -- this is where you get into Creighton in Omaha, Wichita, Raleigh, Tulsa, Miami, etc. And despite your point about "small markets," Creighton and WSU are both in top 50 cities nationally, and as I've just shown, very few of the top 50 cities have good college teams.

Either way, the development of nearly every major college program in our country in either basketball or football disagrees with the idea that the market they are directly in is important, until you're looking at television deals which generally reflects their ability to be important in the entire state.

This is where professional and collegiate sports are different. Professional sports usually needs a huge city. College sports might just be the opposite.

I really haven't figured out your true intent with this post, but there are some glaring omissions and errors in regards to these cities and your point the larger cities don't have successful collegiate programs, such as:

Indianapolis- Indiana University is in Bloomington, about an hour south of Indy. Approximately the same distance as Purdue, Indiana State and Ball State. Can't call any of them Indy schools, however, you seem to have forgotten about a school that is actually inside Indy that has had a little bit of success lately, Butler.

Austin and Columbus have nothing? Might not want to mention that to the Longhorn or Buckeye fans.

You don't consider Charlotte or Boston College noteworthy, but you do OKC? Really?

I realize you are going strictly by city proper populations, but metro's would be a more accurate measure. Cincinnati has two solid programs in UC and Xavier, St. Louis is at least decent, Minneapolis-St Paul has the Gophers. Atlanta has Georgia Tech and Pittsburgh obviously has a solid reputation, although that may have taken a hit during the tournament this year..

[rlh04d]

I really haven't figured out your true intent with this post, but there are some glaring omissions and errors in regards to these cities and your point the larger cities don't have successful collegiate programs, such as:

Indianapolis- Indiana University is in Bloomington, about an hour south of Indy. Approximately the same distance as Purdue, Indiana State and Ball State. Can't call any of them Indy schools, however, you seem to have forgotten about a school that is actually inside Indy that has had a little bit of success lately, Butler.

Austin and Columbus have nothing? Might not want to mention that to the Longhorn or Buckeye fans.

You don't consider Charlotte or Boston College noteworthy, but you do OKC? Really?

I realize you are going strictly by city proper populations, but metro's would be a more accurate measure. Cincinnati has two solid programs in UC and Xavier, St. Louis is at least decent, Minneapolis-St Paul has the Gophers. Atlanta has Georgia Tech and Pittsburgh obviously has a solid reputation, although that may have taken a hit during the tournament this year..

I went strictly off memory for the top 30 cities, so obviously there's probably a number I missed

And a number of mistakes as you pointed out: I would have sworn Indiana was in Indianapolis. Replace them with Butler. I gave Oklahoma State to OKC for some reason in my mind. I have NO idea how I forgot Texas was in Austin or Ohio State was in Columbus

My point isn't that there aren't any successful programs in major cities ... it's that disproportionately most of the biggest cities in the country don't have major college athletics, and the majority of the most successful college athletics programs aren't associated with major cities. Even most of the programs you mentioned, while above average, are hardly that note-worthy. I guess GT won a national championship 20 years ago, but how many of the programs we've mentioned have won championships in either of the top two sports in the last 25 years ... Texas, Ohio State, USC, UCLA, Miami, Louisville, Washington, and GT? And those last three account for three championships.

I also have a hard time really trusting MSA numbers in college athletics. I take them more on a case by case basis for relevance to college sports -- for instance I think Miami's MSA is far more relevant to Miami than NYC's MSA is relevant to Rutgers. When you start extending them into multiple states or 45 miles (or more) away, they lose their relevance to me for this purpose.

[Dean Wormer]

And a number of mistakes as you pointed out: I would have sworn Indiana was in Indianapolis. Replace them with Butler. I gave Oklahoma State to OKC for some reason in my mind. I have NO idea how I forgot Texas was in Austin or Ohio State was in Columbus

My point isn't that there aren't any successful programs in major cities ... it's that disproportionately most of the biggest cities in the country don't have major college athletics, and the majority of the most successful college athletics programs aren't associated with major cities. Even most of the programs you mentioned, while above average, are hardly that note-worthy. I guess GT won a national championship 20 years ago, but how many of the programs we've mentioned have won championships in either of the top two sports in the last 25 years ... Texas, Ohio State, USC, UCLA, Miami, Louisville, Washington, and GT? And those last three account for three championships.

I also have a hard time really trusting MSA numbers in college athletics. I take them more on a case by case basis for relevance to college sports -- for instance I think Miami's MSA is far more relevant to Miami than NYC's MSA is relevant to Rutgers. When you start extending them into multiple states or 45 miles (or more) away, they lose their relevance to me for this purpose.

Whew..I am glad you clarified you thought OSU was in OKC.. I have been scratching my head wondering what you could have possibly thought of OKCU..lol!

My only point on MSA's is that some cities are unrealistically constrained by outdated borders. No one would argue that Atlanta, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Mpls-St. Paul, etc are not much larger urban centers than places like Louisville, Omaha, Wichita, even though these cities have larger population in the city proper.

There seems to be enough examples of both urban and "rural" college towns that have successful programs that you really can't make a case for any type of pattern.

I do agree it's easier to get a community behind a program in places like Omaha, Wichita, even Peoria and Evansville, than a Chicago or NYC.

[rlh04d]

Whew..I am glad you clarified you thought OSU was in OKC.. I have been scratching my head wondering what you could have possibly thought of OKCU..lol!

My only point on MSA's is that some cities are unrealistically constrained by outdated borders. No one would argue that Atlanta, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Mpls-St. Paul, etc are not much larger urban centers than places like Louisville, Omaha, Wichita, even though these cities have larger population in the city proper.

There seems to be enough examples of both urban and "rural" college towns that have successful programs that you really can't make a case for any type of pattern.

I do agree it's easier to get a community behind a program in places like Omaha, Wichita, even Peoria and Evansville, than a Chicago or NYC.

God, you'd think I'd know better with OSU being from Kansas and having family property in Oklahoma. And, you know, that whole degree from the University of Oklahoma thing ... maybe I'm finally becoming a Sooner by refusing to remember any detail of importance about OSU?

I definitely agree about MSA's, and some of those you mentioned I completely agree with. But there are other ones I have a bigger problem with ... like Ann Arbor, MI being part of the Detroit metro area? The Washington, D.C. metro area compromises the city and parts of three states around it -- I'm sorry, but if there was a team in Jefferson County, WV, would people in Arlington, VA 60 miles away give a damn? Philadelphia's MSA gets credit for parts of four states. San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose -- I've lived there and am not willing to accept there being much of any connection in that area between those cities.

Now there are definitely some that should count ... Atlanta, Miami, LA, I'll accept Chicago-land, Tampa, Orlando, Boston, Dallas FW, etc. But most of these are one giant city and then the satellites that surround them. Even the people in those areas will generally refer to themselves as being from the major city. If everyone in a metro area refers to themselves as being from one city, I'm fine with it, because I consider that one city and attached suburbs ... if they don't, I don't see the relevance to college sports.

I just don't think many college programs benefit from the MSA so much as the immediate city around them. I don't know how many people travel 60 miles to watch an A-10 basketball game regularly in a major metro area, but I bet they're all alumni.

I disagree about not finding a pattern, though. Between the two of us ( ) we came up with about 20 programs between the ACC/SEC/Big 12/Big 10/Pac-12/Big Priest as the "Power 6." But there are, what, nearly 80 programs in those 6 conferences? And of those, only four (UCLA, USC, Texas, and Ohio State) have had consistent success in college sports. Most of the others are programs that have been kind of successful in only one of the revenue sports.

[uniftw]

& in spite of this year WSU is consistently the third best program in Kansas. I have no doubt that in spite of the rousing success you had this year things will revert back to the mean.

So being the #3 school in Kansas is better than being the #3 school in any other state in the nation. That makes us the NCState of Kansas, which is not something to be ashamed of. Especially now that we are routinely better than KState and even occasionally KU.

when ate you occasionally better than ku? just because they got knocked out of the tournament before you doesn't mean you were better than them.

Care to explain that one?


KSU I'll give you the occasionally/almost routinely.

[musiccitybulldog]

I noticed Raleigh on the list...but when you consider the Triangle area.... Raleigh-Durham-Cary-Chapel Hill the population is close to 2 million. Population goes over 3 million even with relatively close areas that attend games such as Greensboro-Winston -Salem area. Plus many major corporations in Research Triangle Park.

I think some fans around the country may not have a realistic view as to what it really takes to make some of these major conferences basketball/sports conferences work from a demographics perspective.

That's why I am impressed when a Valley team makes a run. Coach Marshall and Jacobson in recent years have found ways to make/build a nationally competitive team's despite major metro benefits, that's impressive.

It will be interesting having a conference member in a major metro area and see how much of a positive impact it makes.

[Dean Wormer]

I just don't think many college programs benefit from the MSA so much as the immediate city around them. I don't know how many people travel 60 miles to watch an A-10 basketball game regularly in a major metro area, but I bet they're all alumni.

I disagree about not finding a pattern, though. Between the two of us ( ) we came up with about 20 programs between the ACC/SEC/Big 12/Big 10/Pac-12/Big Priest as the "Power 6." But there are, what, nearly 80 programs in those 6 conferences? And of those, only four (UCLA, USC, Texas, and Ohio State) have had consistent success in college sports. Most of the others are programs that have been kind of successful in only one of the revenue sports.

When you use the so-called Power 6, the overwhelming majority of them are the State Flagship University. For whatever reason, the majority of these flagships are located in college towns, not urban centers. Places like Bloomington IN, Lawrence KS, Tuscaloosa AL, etc...I think the thought process back then was the University wanted to be the focal point of the town, and I guess it was a way to throw a bone to another community in the state. If you are the flagship, I really don't think it matters what type of community you are in. Does Ohio State hold any true edge over Indiana, Michigan or Alabama across the board?

Now, I do think as far as the newcomers in the last 30-40 years to the Power schools, location does play a part. Seems like all of them are from urban centers, places like Syracuse, Louisville, Georgetown, Gonzaga, Marquette, etc.. you could even throw Creighton and Butler into that conversation. When I say urban centers, I am talking about medium to large cities. Places like Dayton, Evansville, and Peoria on the low and NYC, Chicago, etc on the high. I am not aware of any private school and very few state schools that are from small towns making any true impact as newcomers.

Since you aren't going to see any new flagships, the growth going forward is going to be from secondary state schools and privates, which will throw the numbers toward medium and large cities.

[rlh04d]

I just don't think many college programs benefit from the MSA so much as the immediate city around them. I don't know how many people travel 60 miles to watch an A-10 basketball game regularly in a major metro area, but I bet they're all alumni.

I disagree about not finding a pattern, though. Between the two of us ( ) we came up with about 20 programs between the ACC/SEC/Big 12/Big 10/Pac-12/Big Priest as the "Power 6." But there are, what, nearly 80 programs in those 6 conferences? And of those, only four (UCLA, USC, Texas, and Ohio State) have had consistent success in college sports. Most of the others are programs that have been kind of successful in only one of the revenue sports.

When you use the so-called Power 6, the overwhelming majority of them are the State Flagship University. For whatever reason, the majority of these flagships are located in college towns, not urban centers. Places like Bloomington IN, Lawrence KS, Tuscaloosa AL, etc...I think the thought process back then was the University wanted to be the focal point of the town, and I guess it was a way to throw a bone to another community in the state. If you are the flagship, I really don't think it matters what type of community you are in. Does Ohio State hold any true edge over Indiana, Michigan or Alabama across the board?

Now, I do think as far as the newcomers in the last 30-40 years to the Power schools, location does play a part. Seems like all of them are from urban centers, places like Syracuse, Louisville, Georgetown, Gonzaga, Marquette, etc.. you could even throw Creighton and Butler into that conversation. When I say urban centers, I am talking about medium to large cities. Places like Dayton, Evansville, and Peoria on the low and NYC, Chicago, etc on the high. I am not aware of any private school and very few state schools that are from small towns making any true impact as newcomers.

Since you aren't going to see any new flagships, the growth going forward is going to be from secondary state schools and privates, which will throw the numbers toward medium and large cities.

Touché

I don't know if some of those fit, though:

Gonzaga is in Spokane, which has a city pop of about 200k, metro area of 400k.
Syracuse is in Syracuse, NY, city pop of 145k, metro area of 660k.

Louisville I think is the school I would really categorize as one that has made huge gains over the last few decades, becoming a national power in both football and basketball and continually moving up in conferences. They have truly been able to capitalize on their location to become a power. Which I think heavily has to do with having little in the way of cross-town sports competition. Louisville is a great model for up and coming teams.