Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
What if Realignment was over? Who came out ahead and who didn't and why?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #41
RE: What if Realignment was over? Who came out ahead and who didn't and why?
(07-21-2014 02:33 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(07-21-2014 12:21 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Let's say a top candidate for addition. I wonder why the ACC never tried to add Rutgers. Maybe you all have some theories about that. 04-cheers

There are two popular theories on that. The first (and one favored by many RU fans) was that the B1G was going to add RU sooner or later and that the ACC had no chance at inviting them. For the reason H1 alluded to: the B1G was looking at RU as a long-term move when the time was right.

The second (the one I lean in favor of) is that RU had no chance at going to the ACC regardless of realignment moves elsewhere. One, the ACC really values basketball as a way of monetizing sports content. RU has struggled in basketball since they joined the Big East. Two, ACC already had a premiere basketball program like Syracuse join in, thus making any other NY/NJ/CT school unnecessary. It may have been that the B1G was looking between RU and UConn and RU won out due to: AAU and colonial heritage; a state with historically good fb recruiting; a state with a high density and relatively wealthy compared with similar states; situated minutes to Staten Island and Manhattan; adjacent state to PA and close to MD; UConn's fb program only recently entering Div 1-A. I don't know for sure but those would be the likely reasons.

Of course the Big 10 could not have been certain that Rutgers would not have been offered by the ACC. At the time it wasn't as cut and dried as it is in hindsight. Nobody expected the sudden movement of Syracuse and Pitt to the ACC and suddenly the vulnerability of Penn State had legs. The ACC stood at 14 at the time and could conceivably have taken Connecticut or Rutgers or both in an attempt to land the Lions and lock the Big 10 out. N.D. wasn't in the picture yet. From my perspective the move on Rutgers and the taking of Maryland was a Sicilian message to the ACC. Only picking off an ACC school could toss enough doubt Penn State's way to say to them it would be foolish to ever risk a move to the ACC. Picking off a charter member was a key stroke of genius.

That move severed the continuity of the ACC footprint, and should the Big 10 ever be interested put Syracuse back in play. Only then did the Irish step in putting to rest what looked like immediate vulnerability in the ACC. That single move may have halted everyone's expansion to 16 out of the ACC. It certainly halted further Big 10 and SEC plans from being realized and likely ended any plans that the Big 12 had of gaining viable expansion candidates.
07-21-2014 03:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #42
RE: What if Realignment was over? Who came out ahead and who didn't and why?
(07-21-2014 02:33 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(07-21-2014 12:21 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Let's say a top candidate for addition. I wonder why the ACC never tried to add Rutgers. Maybe you all have some theories about that. 04-cheers

There are two popular theories on that. The first (and one favored by many RU fans) was that the B1G was going to add RU sooner or later and that the ACC had no chance at inviting them. For the reason H1 alluded to: the B1G was looking at RU as a long-term move when the time was right.

The second (the one I lean in favor of) is that RU had no chance at going to the ACC regardless of realignment moves elsewhere. One, the ACC really values basketball as a way of monetizing sports content. RU has struggled in basketball since they joined the Big East. Two, ACC already had a premiere basketball program like Syracuse join in, thus making any other NY/NJ/CT school unnecessary. It may have been that the B1G was looking between RU and UConn and RU won out due to: AAU and colonial heritage; a state with historically good fb recruiting; a state with a high density and relatively wealthy compared with similar states; situated minutes to Staten Island and Manhattan; adjacent state to PA and close to MD; UConn's fb program only recently entering Div 1-A. I don't know for sure but those would be the likely reasons.

The truth of the matter is that Rutgers does not fit the ACC profile, it is just too darn big. Most of the schools in the ACC have smaller student bodies (UG) than schools in the B1G and in the SEC. FSU at about 35,000 is the largest of the ACC schools. Wake Forest on the other hand has fewer than 5,000 UG students. Even some the public schools in the league (Carolina, Clemson, UVa, and Georgia Tech) all have UG populations of less than 20,000 and operate more like a private rather than a public school.
07-21-2014 03:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #43
RE: What if Realignment was over? Who came out ahead and who didn't and why?
(07-21-2014 03:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  
(07-21-2014 02:33 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(07-21-2014 12:21 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Let's say a top candidate for addition. I wonder why the ACC never tried to add Rutgers. Maybe you all have some theories about that. 04-cheers

There are two popular theories on that. The first (and one favored by many RU fans) was that the B1G was going to add RU sooner or later and that the ACC had no chance at inviting them. For the reason H1 alluded to: the B1G was looking at RU as a long-term move when the time was right.

The second (the one I lean in favor of) is that RU had no chance at going to the ACC regardless of realignment moves elsewhere. One, the ACC really values basketball as a way of monetizing sports content. RU has struggled in basketball since they joined the Big East. Two, ACC already had a premiere basketball program like Syracuse join in, thus making any other NY/NJ/CT school unnecessary. It may have been that the B1G was looking between RU and UConn and RU won out due to: AAU and colonial heritage; a state with historically good fb recruiting; a state with a high density and relatively wealthy compared with similar states; situated minutes to Staten Island and Manhattan; adjacent state to PA and close to MD; UConn's fb program only recently entering Div 1-A. I don't know for sure but those would be the likely reasons.

The truth of the matter is that Rutgers does not fit the ACC profile, it is just too darn big. Most of the schools in the ACC have smaller student bodies (UG) than schools in the B1G and in the SEC. FSU at about 35,000 is the largest of the ACC schools. Wake Forest on the other hand has fewer than 5,000 UG students. Even some the public schools in the league (Carolina, Clemson, UVa, and Georgia Tech) all have UG populations of less than 20,000 and operate more like a private rather than a public school.

I think the ACC got it right. If Rutgers had a storied basketball or football program then I think the size issue wouldn't have mattered to the ACC but as an institution Rutgers doesn't quite fit the ACC mold and fits the Big Ten mold perfectly. Thus the Big Ten is willing to help Rutgers build it's programs because Rutgers fits.
07-21-2014 10:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jhawkmvp Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 443
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Kansas
Location: Over the Rainbow
Post: #44
RE: What if Realignment was over? Who came out ahead and who didn't and why?
Rutgers has been on the B1G radar since at least the mid 90s. I know there are rumors that after PSU joined, and when the Big 8 and SWC were on the rocks before they merged, that Rutgers, KU, and MU were under consideration by the B1G.

For decades Rutgers failed to invest in their sports programs and it showed in the results. When they started to invest in them their FB program became respectable and competitive (BB sucks still but with the right coach and being in the NYC BB hotbed there is no reason they should not improve there). South Carolina was mediocre before they joined the SEC too. Looking at their Wiki all their national titles (in any sport) have come since the 2000s. They built up their sports programs after the SEC move. Maybe Rutgers can do the same.

I think that if you go back to when the B1G and SEC expanded from 10 schools that they have had very similar additions, though if I was grading I think the B1G four additions are very slightly ahead of the SEC additions; however, the SEC additions were culturally a better fit. The SEC pulling ahead as a sports conference has more to do with its original 10 schools than anyone they added in realignment. Splitting hairs ....

PSU >= A&M
Both brought in high population markets; however, PSU owns theirs and has influence into other large eastern cities like NYC, while A&M shared Texas with many other FBS programs who fragment the market quite a bit. PSU gave the B1G the reach to pull in east coast schools (see the later additions of RU and UMD). A&M might help pull in other B12 schools later as well. Both are AAU. PSU FB >> A&M FB historically which is why I lean towards PSU. If you consider Texas recruiting versus PA then it is probably equal. Both were great additions.

Nebraska > Arkansas
Both are in small states. Both have solid overall sports programs or better. NU FB >> Arkansas football. Both can be used as bridge additions to grab schools like Texas, OU, and KU in the future. The Cornhuskers are a national FB brand and why I put them ahead of the Razorbacks. Both good additions.

Maryland > Missouri
Similar populations. Both the power in their own state. DC and BLT > STL and KC. Maryland has had a much more successful overall sports history and are one of the few programs with national titles in FB and BB. MU has underachieved relative to their resources in sports (maybe the SEC move will help remedy this). Both AAU. Both help bridge possible big additions later on (UMD => UNC, UVA; MU => OU, KU, UT?). Really eerily similar, except for UMD's more successful sports programs which is why I gave UMD the edge. Both strong additions.

South Carolina >= Rutgers
Rutgers brings in a huge population increase to the B1G. USC sports were not good before the SEC, but were much better than Rutgers which has a dismal sports history. USC >> Rutgers in sports, but Rutgers markets >> than USC. I lean USC because they had some sports programs (i.e. baseball) that had some success prior to the SEC, and they have really blossomed in the SEC. Rutgers not so much. Rutgers is AAU. But if you take markets into it Rutgers is at least equal, if not a bigger add. Good additions.

All these schools should be schools the B12, ACC, and PAC would and should take (or take back) if they were available and right next to their footprint. These are all good to great additions for various reasons. You could swap UMD and MU to the SEC or B1G and both would be happy. I never broke it down like this before because I think all the additions were good to great, but I guess I like the B1G ones slightly better.
07-22-2014 01:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BewareThePhog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,881
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 137
I Root For: KU
Location:
Post: #45
RE: What if Realignment was over? Who came out ahead and who didn't and why?
Nice analysis, jhawkmvp - and I don't just say that as a fellow Jayhawk. 04-cheers

While I think that the SEC has done a fantastic job in expansion, I think that your statement that "The SEC pulling ahead as a sports conference has more to do with its original 10 schools than anyone they added in realignment." is spot on. The fact that their additions have been good cultural fits has been a great factor in future success, but they're adding those schools to a very strong base.
07-22-2014 09:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,401
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 194
I Root For: Return To Stability
Location:
Post: #46
RE: What if Realignment was over? Who came out ahead and who didn't and why?
(07-21-2014 03:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-21-2014 02:33 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(07-21-2014 12:21 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Let's say a top candidate for addition. I wonder why the ACC never tried to add Rutgers. Maybe you all have some theories about that. 04-cheers

There are two popular theories on that. The first (and one favored by many RU fans) was that the B1G was going to add RU sooner or later and that the ACC had no chance at inviting them. For the reason H1 alluded to: the B1G was looking at RU as a long-term move when the time was right.

The second (the one I lean in favor of) is that RU had no chance at going to the ACC regardless of realignment moves elsewhere. One, the ACC really values basketball as a way of monetizing sports content. RU has struggled in basketball since they joined the Big East. Two, ACC already had a premiere basketball program like Syracuse join in, thus making any other NY/NJ/CT school unnecessary. It may have been that the B1G was looking between RU and UConn and RU won out due to: AAU and colonial heritage; a state with historically good fb recruiting; a state with a high density and relatively wealthy compared with similar states; situated minutes to Staten Island and Manhattan; adjacent state to PA and close to MD; UConn's fb program only recently entering Div 1-A. I don't know for sure but those would be the likely reasons.

Of course the Big 10 could not have been certain that Rutgers would not have been offered by the ACC. At the time it wasn't as cut and dried as it is in hindsight. Nobody expected the sudden movement of Syracuse and Pitt to the ACC and suddenly the vulnerability of Penn State had legs. The ACC stood at 14 at the time and could conceivably have taken Connecticut or Rutgers or both in an attempt to land the Lions and lock the Big 10 out. N.D. wasn't in the picture yet. From my perspective the move on Rutgers and the taking of Maryland was a Sicilian message to the ACC. Only picking off an ACC school could toss enough doubt Penn State's way to say to them it would be foolish to ever risk a move to the ACC. Picking off a charter member was a key stroke of genius.

That move severed the continuity of the ACC footprint, and should the Big 10 ever be interested put Syracuse back in play. Only then did the Irish step in putting to rest what looked like immediate vulnerability in the ACC. That single move may have halted everyone's expansion to 16 out of the ACC. It certainly halted further Big 10 and SEC plans from being realized and likely ended any plans that the Big 12 had of gaining viable expansion candidates.

Except that ND had joined the ACC before MD had announced the move to the Big Ten, unless you mean they were the ones pushing for the Grant of Rights the most.
07-23-2014 12:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #47
RE: What if Realignment was over? Who came out ahead and who didn't and why?
(07-23-2014 12:13 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(07-21-2014 03:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-21-2014 02:33 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(07-21-2014 12:21 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Let's say a top candidate for addition. I wonder why the ACC never tried to add Rutgers. Maybe you all have some theories about that. 04-cheers

There are two popular theories on that. The first (and one favored by many RU fans) was that the B1G was going to add RU sooner or later and that the ACC had no chance at inviting them. For the reason H1 alluded to: the B1G was looking at RU as a long-term move when the time was right.

The second (the one I lean in favor of) is that RU had no chance at going to the ACC regardless of realignment moves elsewhere. One, the ACC really values basketball as a way of monetizing sports content. RU has struggled in basketball since they joined the Big East. Two, ACC already had a premiere basketball program like Syracuse join in, thus making any other NY/NJ/CT school unnecessary. It may have been that the B1G was looking between RU and UConn and RU won out due to: AAU and colonial heritage; a state with historically good fb recruiting; a state with a high density and relatively wealthy compared with similar states; situated minutes to Staten Island and Manhattan; adjacent state to PA and close to MD; UConn's fb program only recently entering Div 1-A. I don't know for sure but those would be the likely reasons.

Of course the Big 10 could not have been certain that Rutgers would not have been offered by the ACC. At the time it wasn't as cut and dried as it is in hindsight. Nobody expected the sudden movement of Syracuse and Pitt to the ACC and suddenly the vulnerability of Penn State had legs. The ACC stood at 14 at the time and could conceivably have taken Connecticut or Rutgers or both in an attempt to land the Lions and lock the Big 10 out. N.D. wasn't in the picture yet. From my perspective the move on Rutgers and the taking of Maryland was a Sicilian message to the ACC. Only picking off an ACC school could toss enough doubt Penn State's way to say to them it would be foolish to ever risk a move to the ACC. Picking off a charter member was a key stroke of genius.

That move severed the continuity of the ACC footprint, and should the Big 10 ever be interested put Syracuse back in play. Only then did the Irish step in putting to rest what looked like immediate vulnerability in the ACC. That single move may have halted everyone's expansion to 16 out of the ACC. It certainly halted further Big 10 and SEC plans from being realized and likely ended any plans that the Big 12 had of gaining viable expansion candidates.

Except that ND had joined the ACC before MD had announced the move to the Big Ten, unless you mean they were the ones pushing for the Grant of Rights the most.

Yes almost 2 months earlier in September of 2012 and Maryland officially announced on Nov. 20 2012. My statement that N.D. wasn't in the picture yet was in error. But the overall point is still valid. The ACC looked exceedingly vulnerable and you are right that it remained that way until the signing of the GOR.
07-23-2014 05:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,589
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #48
RE: What if Realignment was over? Who came out ahead and who didn't and why?
I decided to evaluate this by schools and then conferences...

Winning Schools: Rutgers, Utah, Louisville, TCU and ND* (The Irish deal with ACC gives the the flexibility and exposure they desire)

Losing Schools: Cincinnati, UConn and USF.

Conferences is IMO a tougher nut to crack because of the various metrics one can use to evaluate overall performance. My rankings are based on the overall change in money and stability prior to realignment.

1. B1G - Going to 12 created a CCG. Additions 13 and 14 while not great on the field, will allow Delany to leverage the BTN and fill the Chicago coffers.

2. ACC - Adding ND bought CFB credibility while Louisville addition stabilized the conference and appeased Clemson and FSU. The loss of UMD will not adversely affect the league.

3. SEC - A conference that was stable, popular and profitable added two teams to provided enough justification to create a conference network. While this will be a boon for the likes of Ole Miss and Kentucky, individual teams were able to profit quite nicely with their own T3 deals.

4. PAC - Added to teams to create a CCG and pull down a handsome TV deal. Yet exposure remained relatively the same.

5. B12 - Decreased overall footprint combined with a loss of major brands forced the conference to make hasty additions to maintain viability. The conferences entire existence rests upon the whims of one team.
07-23-2014 07:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jhawkmvp Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 443
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Kansas
Location: Over the Rainbow
Post: #49
RE: What if Realignment was over? Who came out ahead and who didn't and why?
(07-23-2014 07:39 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I decided to evaluate this by schools and then conferences...

Winning Schools: Rutgers, Utah, Louisville, TCU and ND* (The Irish deal with ACC gives the the flexibility and exposure they desire)

Losing Schools: Cincinnati, UConn and USF.

Conferences is IMO a tougher nut to crack because of the various metrics one can use to evaluate overall performance. My rankings are based on the overall change in money and stability prior to realignment.

1. B1G - Going to 12 created a CCG. Additions 13 and 14 while not great on the field, will allow Delany to leverage the BTN and fill the Chicago coffers.

2. ACC - Adding ND bought CFB credibility while Louisville addition stabilized the conference and appeased Clemson and FSU. The loss of UMD will not adversely affect the league.

3. SEC - A conference that was stable, popular and profitable added two teams to provided enough justification to create a conference network. While this will be a boon for the likes of Ole Miss and Kentucky, individual teams were able to profit quite nicely with their own T3 deals.

4. PAC - Added to teams to create a CCG and pull down a handsome TV deal. Yet exposure remained relatively the same.

5. B12 - Decreased overall footprint combined with a loss of major brands forced the conference to make hasty additions to maintain viability. The conferences entire existence rests upon the whims of one team.

I would add BYU to the losers. They had their shot at the B12, but turned everyone off in the B12 with their demands. Now they are begging for an invite and the B12 won't open the door. The SEC and ACC just relegated them to the G5 instead of saying they are in ND's class as an indy. They made a huge mistake not getting in the B12 when they had a shot.
07-23-2014 07:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #50
RE: What if Realignment was over? Who came out ahead and who didn't and why?
(07-10-2014 03:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-10-2014 03:21 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  I concur with pretty much all of that Jr. I noticed for the ACC you did not mention the recent add of Cuse and Pitt to the
ACC. I am not a TV Exec, but the Big 12 footprint has been reduced, and I think bringing in Cincinnati (Ohio) 11.5 Million and ...
UCF (Florida) 21 Million (population) would add more value especially long term to that conference.

As an example, if ESPN is doing multiple 3:30 kick offs on ESPN 2, and U, ..........an Okie State / TCU game is not
shown in Ohio or Florida (you would get a blend of as an example, Pitt / Cuse, Purdue / Illinois, UK / Miss St in Ohio and
ACC SEC games in Florida. Last season more viewers watched Texas A&M football than Texas, part of that is Johnny Football but
the other part is the footprint of the SEC (and their fans watch more than any other conference).

The omission of Syracuse and Pitt was not intentional on my part, just my mistake. And I agree that UCF and Cincinnati would help to recover Big 12 footprint size. I think they aren't expanding because Texas and OU want a manageable number to dissolve the conference if they see it in their best interest to move. Big 12 fans here get irate with me when I say that but I said it two years ago and it is still true. Getting 8 Big 12 schools placed (which meets their rules on dissolution) is doable, placing 9 or 10 probably not. It takes 75% of the votes in the conference to accomplish. Expand to 12 and it becomes 9, expand to 14 and it becomes 10. Hence no expansion.

I don't think they would be overly concerned with the placement of either W.V.U. or T.C.U. should they decide to move. They would be concerned to find homes for Baylor, Texas Tech, Kansas State, Iowa State and Oklahoma State. Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas could find a home with no trouble.
Yep. Whatever Texas and OU's interests are is how the ole Big XII rolls. Some of the schools figured the scenario out long ago...
07-24-2014 01:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #51
RE: What if Realignment was over? Who came out ahead and who didn't and why?
(07-23-2014 07:39 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I decided to evaluate this by schools and then conferences...

Winning Schools: Rutgers, Utah, Louisville, TCU and ND* (The Irish deal with ACC gives the the flexibility and exposure they desire)

Losing Schools: Cincinnati, UConn and USF.

Conferences is IMO a tougher nut to crack because of the various metrics one can use to evaluate overall performance. My rankings are based on the overall change in money and stability prior to realignment.

1. B1G - Going to 12 created a CCG. Additions 13 and 14 while not great on the field, will allow Delany to leverage the BTN and fill the Chicago coffers.

2. ACC - Adding ND bought CFB credibility while Louisville addition stabilized the conference and appeased Clemson and FSU. The loss of UMD will not adversely affect the league.

3. SEC - A conference that was stable, popular and profitable added two teams to provided enough justification to create a conference network. While this will be a boon for the likes of Ole Miss and Kentucky, individual teams were able to profit quite nicely with their own T3 deals.

4. PAC - Added to teams to create a CCG and pull down a handsome TV deal. Yet exposure remained relatively the same.

5. B12 - Decreased overall footprint combined with a loss of major brands forced the conference to make hasty additions to maintain viability. The conferences entire existence rests upon the whims of one team.
Spot on commentary.04-bow
07-24-2014 01:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #52
RE: What if Realignment was over? Who came out ahead and who didn't and why?
(07-23-2014 07:39 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I decided to evaluate this by schools and then conferences...

Winning Schools: Rutgers, Utah, Louisville, TCU and ND* (The Irish deal with ACC gives the the flexibility and exposure they desire)

Losing Schools: Cincinnati, UConn and USF.

Conferences is IMO a tougher nut to crack because of the various metrics one can use to evaluate overall performance. My rankings are based on the overall change in money and stability prior to realignment.

1. B1G - Going to 12 created a CCG. Additions 13 and 14 while not great on the field, will allow Delany to leverage the BTN and fill the Chicago coffers.

2. ACC - Adding ND bought CFB credibility while Louisville addition stabilized the conference and appeased Clemson and FSU. The loss of UMD will not adversely affect the league.

3. SEC - A conference that was stable, popular and profitable added two teams to provided enough justification to create a conference network. While this will be a boon for the likes of Ole Miss and Kentucky, individual teams were able to profit quite nicely with their own T3 deals.

4. PAC - Added to teams to create a CCG and pull down a handsome TV deal. Yet exposure remained relatively the same.

5. B12 - Decreased overall footprint combined with a loss of major brands forced the conference to make hasty additions to maintain viability. The conferences entire existence rests upon the whims of one team.

Vandiver, I respect you and your opinions, but the part I bolded is exactly why I do not agree with your analysis here. Alabama was making between 9 - 10 million on T3. Florida was the leader with the Sunshine Network deal at 13 million. Both will be making more with the SECN by year 3. When the DirectTV issue gets settled we will be looking in the 15 million range or higher. That's the piece that we need to totally saturate our footprint. Comcast gives us broader coverage nationally as will UVerse. Dish just isn't that big yet in our area.

If adding Missouri and A&M landed us a network then they were much more important additions than you have given them credit for. Missouri and A&M landed us a number of significant markets, have netted us a Heisman and a division champ, and brought in between them a potential 35 million viewers.

In the game of realignment those two exceed for us our expectations for every one but a North Carolina and Virginia school. If trends hold true for Oklahoma the way the have for Nebraska both will be eventually be more valuable to the SEC in terms of potential revenue generators than the Sooners long term. No doubt Oklahoma's cache is the better short term boost. Texas is a big fish but one that comes with much difficulty. A&M fits right in and Missouri only needs a little time.

With regards to the Big 10 Maryland and Rutgers meet their needs and do for them what A&M and Missouri did for us.

With regards to the ACC I profoundly disagree with your assessment. Maryland was not much of a sports loss but as a founding member of the ACC, a stalwart academic institution, and a cultural and geographic fit Louisville can't touch them. As a sports institution Louisville will amply fill their void. But remember what the ACC is always touting. It's not sports. It's their academics. In that regard they all know that Louisville is not an on par replacement of Maryland and is a cultural and geographic outlier, just not a severe one like West Virginia is to the Big 12.

Notre Dame brings cache, but not much money. Football is N.D.'s cash cow and their home games belong to them and not the ACC. I could concur with your assessment of the ACC had N.D. joined in full.

I also still see potential trouble ahead for the ACC. The Network issue could yet prove to be an Achilles heel for them with the Big 10 sure to get a leg up in a year and with the SEC's gap widening with them.

No I think there were clearly two winners in realignment, the SEC and Big 10 and how you rank them is truthfully debatable. The ACC won is as much as they did the better job of surviving. The PAC added two teams and that is about all I can say for them. Had they landed Texas and Oklahoma I would declare them to be the winners, but they didn't. Had Oklahoma and Texas landed Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and Georgia Tech I would have given them a much higher rating, but instead they got West Virginia and T.C.U., one a total outlier and the other the #5 school in a state they had sewed up. Not to mention they lost 2 strong regional brands, a national brand, and 4 AAU schools (Nebraska still was at the time).

Well, time will bear out all things here. But I don't think realignment is over and I'll discuss it with you in a PM so as not to be too inflammatory to those who hope that it is over.
07-24-2014 06:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #53
RE: What if Realignment was over? Who came out ahead and who didn't and why?
I would agree that the Big Ten and SEC were the clear frontrunners in terms of gaining from realignment. I made some comparisons between SEC expansion schools and Big Ten expansion schools just to show that the Big Ten was not way behind the SEC in terms of strategic gains from realignment. When you line up South Carolina, Arkansas, Texas A&M and Missouri though as expansion pieces...I really don't see how you could do better than that quantitatively.

The main difference between SEC expansion and Big Ten expansion is that SEC expansion has more years to it. We have had a chance to see a bottom dweller South Carolina slowly build itself up to prominence. When they were first admitted though, I wouldn't see them as anything better than Maryland or Rutgers. The State of South Carolina? Not a huge grab for the SEC but nice to put the SEC flag there for sure. The State of Arkansas? Once again, not a great grab but another Southern State to plant that SEC flag in. Both of those schools have taken advantage of SEC membership just as I believe Rutgers and Maryland will with the Big Ten.

Maryland and Rutgers on the other hand add major markets and strong recruiting grounds for the Big Ten. They may not be SEC grade recruiting grounds but a lot of the Big Ten was already looking to the Beltway for recruits and now it will be even better for Big Ten schools. Nebraska isn't much of a market or recruiting grab at all but it is a Tier 1 brand in my opinion and a great grab. Penn State is the same but also comes with markets and recruiting as well as the Gateway to the East. Penn State was probably the best expansion piece move made by any conference. You might argue Texas A&M but that hasn't led to any other moves for the SEC where as Penn State led to the acquisitions of Maryland and Rutgers in time.


I really cant argue any of these merits for any of the other conferences. The PAC got Utah and Colorado? Extremely underwhelming considering what they were shooting for. Some folks would try to argue the same about The Big Ten and not getting into Virginia and North Carolina but The Beltway is really where the Big Ten wanted to be. Virginia and North Carolina would have been icing on the cake for sure but pulling Colorado from the Big 12 is no where near as big of a deal as pulling Maryland from the ACC was. The PAC got none of their real targets and likely never will.

I would put ACC expansion above the PAC for sure, probably at #3. The thing is though, schools like Pitt, Louisville and Syracuse were obviously looked over by other conferences. That does not mean that they aren't valuable for the ACC but The Big Ten, SEC and Big 12 all overlooked some or all of these schools. As athletic gains, the ACC did very well. These are associations of academic institutions though. You cant just judge these moves based off of NCAA March Madness appearances or recent success on the grid iron.

Texas A&M, Missouri, South Carolina and Arkansas.

Penn State, Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers.

We similarity with those groupings of four. You take a look at the ACC's list and you see...
Georgia Tech, Boston College, Virginia Tech, Miami, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Louisville.

You have some very recognizable names but by no means does the list seem similar to what the SEC and Big Ten's list have going on with them. Private vs Public. It certainly is more difficult to attract a public University to move than it is a Private. Especially considering most of that movement to the ACC came from the same corpse of a conference. Looking at that list in it's entirety, there isn't much difference to what the ACC did than what happened between Texas and the Big 8 except that Texas had the balls to do the movement all at once and to not drag out the degradation over a decade.
07-24-2014 05:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jhawkmvp Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 443
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Kansas
Location: Over the Rainbow
Post: #54
RE: What if Realignment was over? Who came out ahead and who didn't and why?
(07-10-2014 11:21 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Note: All of this is taking into account moves since 2010. If we go back to all moves since Penn State started the major moves two decades ago, then the Big Ten is on top.

In terms of programs:
Big winners: (Other than A&M these are all programs that could have been left out of major conference status in the right circumstances).
1. TCU: A very good program, but one that could have easily forever been out of a major conference again and one that might not have the following quite big enough to get it back there if it didn't happen now. Things fell perfectly and they ended in the perfect conference for them.
2. Louisville: By no stretch of the imagination would most have picked them over to the ACC over UConn in the past. The ACC's expansion model seemed to very much suggest UConn, but Louisville, one of the best run programs in the country, made it past them.
3-4. Rutgers, Utah: Both in major conferences when they might not have been.
5-6. Pitt/Syracuse: Both made it to a long term stable home that fits them very well.
7. Texas A&M: Texas A&M was a flagship Texas program that was simply overshadowed in the Big 12. Most people outside the area who weren't big fans didn't really think of them any differently than Texas Tech. All that changed with this move and A&M can rise to their potential.

Moderate winners (fans might be happy now, but long term, it's only a huge difference to those cashing the checks):
8-9. Nebraska, Colorado: Both programs made moves that made sense, but I'm not sure it will effect the fanbases much over the long term. Nebraska in the Big Ten West isn't all that difference from them in the Big 12 North. They are the lone supper name program there (although Wisconsin is growing). Colorado meanwhile gets PAC-12 games that are probably about equally exiting overall to the Big 12 ones.
10. Maryland: Left a better fitting conference geographically and has a divided fanbase over it (more so than anyone above them on the list).
11. Missouri: I believe Missouri would have very much prospered in the new Big 12. They had the 2nd biggest state in the conference after Texas and would have been a central power for the conference. They had a great year last year, but they are on the periphery of the SEC and I think will stand out far less than they would have in the Big 12. That said, the fans are still happy and stability is there.

Nice breakdown. Some comments.

I would put Utah and TCU both as 1a and 1b. They both jumped from a G5 to P5 conference. Both would still be G5 if a few moves had happened in realignment (primarily 6 B12 schools going to PAC in 2010).

WVU should be in that group of former Big East schools as a big winner, or if you hate the geography, then at least a moderate winner. They secured a P5 spot and are not in Cincinnati, UConn, or USF shoes of getting relegated to the G5. Plus, they will get a huge revenue increase. They might break into the $100M AD revenue club when fully vested in the B12.

A few comments related to the former B12 schools:

Your A&M comment is spot on. Worse case for A&M is that they end up an also ran in the SEC like they were in the B12 (neutral). Best case, they become a national power being the Texas school in the SEC (huge gain). Either way they gained their own identity out of Texas's shadow and differentiated themselves from TTU.

CU made a good decision they were always kind of an outlier culturally in the B8 and were definitely an outlier in the B12. They pull tons of students from CA and have a huge alum base there. Gained stability, though for them the PAC has always been waiting with open arms.

MU gained stability. I think that was their main motivation in realignment and they have a great new home.

I would have put NU last. NU was the school that would have thrived in a smaller, ten school B12 if MU had been taken by the B1G instead in 2010. NU would have seen OU come back on the schedule every year and would have added Texas as well. There is so much bad blood there that it would have become an awesome rivalry, if played annually. They would have gotten 2 games in Texas every year to help bump up their recruiting there. This would have been a chance for them to regain their glory. Instead their best days are behind them IMO. However, like MU they moved for stability and got a great new home. I can't blame them for that.

What's interesting, in hindsight, is that the B1G should have taken MU in 2010. Then the SEC probably ends up with WVU in 2011, if A&M still decided to move. It would have set up a later expansion of KU/NU/OU/UT. I think the SEC really threw a wrench in B1G plans by taking MU. I think they had MU pegged for a later expansion and thought MU had no other strong option so they would be there down the road.
(This post was last modified: 07-24-2014 08:31 PM by jhawkmvp.)
07-24-2014 08:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #55
RE: What if Realignment was over? Who came out ahead and who didn't and why?
When modern realignment started there were three national conferences: the Big Ten, SEC and PAC 10. There were also three strong regional conferences: the ACC, SWC and Big 8, plus a handfull of major independents (Florida State, Penn State and Notre Dame etc.).
Now those of you that believe that the SEC and the B1G were the two biggest winners in realignment, I respect your opinions....but you're wrong.
The biggest winner is of course the ACC.
The reasoning is simple; it's the only regional conference that became a national conference.
The ACC went from having it's football champion play in the Gator Bowl to play on New Years Day and become the host team of the Orange Bowl. Now, I know some of you will cite the Big 12 and had Nebraska, Missouri, Texas A & M and Colorado stayed they would be considered a national conference too, but.........

The ACC thrived and grew when everyone else in their peer group either died or is dying. I credit equal revenue sharing, solid institutions, and superior leadership for the ACC's survival.
I don't really want to sell the SWC and the Big 8 short here. After all the SWC sent their champion to the Cotton Bowl and the Big 8 Champion was the host team of the Orange Bowl for many years. I actually think that this makes the ACC's rise even more remarkable.
That credit for that rise is really due to the vision of Tom Mickle, and the skill of John Swofford for the execution of Mickle's plan.

http://books.google.com/books?id=vaduAAA...cs&f=false

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2412090
(This post was last modified: 07-25-2014 07:08 AM by XLance.)
07-24-2014 09:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,589
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #56
RE: What if Realignment was over? Who came out ahead and who didn't and why?
(07-24-2014 06:19 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-23-2014 07:39 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I decided to evaluate this by schools and then conferences...

Winning Schools: Rutgers, Utah, Louisville, TCU and ND* (The Irish deal with ACC gives the the flexibility and exposure they desire)

Losing Schools: Cincinnati, UConn and USF.

Conferences is IMO a tougher nut to crack because of the various metrics one can use to evaluate overall performance. My rankings are based on the overall change in money and stability prior to realignment.

1. B1G - Going to 12 created a CCG. Additions 13 and 14 while not great on the field, will allow Delany to leverage the BTN and fill the Chicago coffers.

2. ACC - Adding ND bought CFB credibility while Louisville addition stabilized the conference and appeased Clemson and FSU. The loss of UMD will not adversely affect the league.

3. SEC - A conference that was stable, popular and profitable added two teams to provided enough justification to create a conference network. While this will be a boon for the likes of Ole Miss and Kentucky, individual teams were able to profit quite nicely with their own T3 deals.

4. PAC - Added to teams to create a CCG and pull down a handsome TV deal. Yet exposure remained relatively the same.

5. B12 - Decreased overall footprint combined with a loss of major brands forced the conference to make hasty additions to maintain viability. The conferences entire existence rests upon the whims of one team.

Vandiver, I respect you and your opinions, but the part I bolded is exactly why I do not agree with your analysis here. Alabama was making between 9 - 10 million on T3. Florida was the leader with the Sunshine Network deal at 13 million. Both will be making more with the SECN by year 3. When the DirectTV issue gets settled we will be looking in the 15 million range or higher. That's the piece that we need to totally saturate our footprint. Comcast gives us broader coverage nationally as will UVerse. Dish just isn't that big yet in our area.

If adding Missouri and A&M landed us a network then they were much more important additions than you have given them credit for. Missouri and A&M landed us a number of significant markets, have netted us a Heisman and a division champ, and brought in between them a potential 35 million viewers.

In the game of realignment those two exceed for us our expectations for every one but a North Carolina and Virginia school. If trends hold true for Oklahoma the way the have for Nebraska both will be eventually be more valuable to the SEC in terms of potential revenue generators than the Sooners long term. No doubt Oklahoma's cache is the better short term boost. Texas is a big fish but one that comes with much difficulty. A&M fits right in and Missouri only needs a little time.

With regards to the Big 10 Maryland and Rutgers meet their needs and do for them what A&M and Missouri did for us.

With regards to the ACC I profoundly disagree with your assessment. Maryland was not much of a sports loss but as a founding member of the ACC, a stalwart academic institution, and a cultural and geographic fit Louisville can't touch them. As a sports institution Louisville will amply fill their void. But remember what the ACC is always touting. It's not sports. It's their academics. In that regard they all know that Louisville is not an on par replacement of Maryland and is a cultural and geographic outlier, just not a severe one like West Virginia is to the Big 12.

Notre Dame brings cache, but not much money. Football is N.D.'s cash cow and their home games belong to them and not the ACC. I could concur with your assessment of the ACC had N.D. joined in full.

I also still see potential trouble ahead for the ACC. The Network issue could yet prove to be an Achilles heel for them with the Big 10 sure to get a leg up in a year and with the SEC's gap widening with them.

No I think there were clearly two winners in realignment, the SEC and Big 10 and how you rank them is truthfully debatable. The ACC won is as much as they did the better job of surviving. The PAC added two teams and that is about all I can say for them. Had they landed Texas and Oklahoma I would declare them to be the winners, but they didn't. Had Oklahoma and Texas landed Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and Georgia Tech I would have given them a much higher rating, but instead they got West Virginia and T.C.U., one a total outlier and the other the #5 school in a state they had sewed up. Not to mention they lost 2 strong regional brands, a national brand, and 4 AAU schools (Nebraska still was at the time).

Well, time will bear out all things here. But I don't think realignment is over and I'll discuss it with you in a PM so as not to be too inflammatory to those who hope that it is over.

JR,

Disagreements are why message boards exist in the first place! Clearly, we depart with each other regarding the rankings of the ACC vs. the SEC. I'll try to lay out my position with the following:

In 2008, the SEC signed a deal with ESPN that was slated to pay the member schools between 12-15 million a year. Schools with T3 deals would get their extra 6-9 million and thus not have been that far behind the B1G. Based upon the projected numbers for the SECN, that 2008 was undervalued. But I still agreed with Slive's decision because to me, getting the SEC across on multiple ESPN channels all day Saturday trumped consolidating all that content in on one channel. Additionally, the investment in the 2008 ESPN deal for the average SEC consumer was not nearly as steep and what the SECN will eventually be. I just think between the increase in cable rates along with the out pricing of the stadium experience may kill the passion for Southern football for many fans. It certainly isn't cultivating it.

The ACC on the other hand had a different set of priorities starting first and foremost with it's competition with the Big East. Much like the Highlander, there could be only one East Coast Conference. Adding Pitt and Syracuse proved to be the death knell for the Big East, with the added bonus of shaking loose ND. Next, Swafford aligned the ACC with ESPN in a way no conference had done before. I think the ACC Commish knew that what his conference lacked in nature CFB passion could be made up for with security and wider distribution. But considering that Swafford kept Raycom Sports alive so it could have simply been dumb luck.

Regardless, the combination of these moves in my mind lessened the blow that losing a founding member like UMD represented. Plus, UMD moving allowed the ACC to add Louisville, thus freeing the conference from the yoke academic pretentiousness. Should the ACC need to expand again, it is no longer constrained by the 'UConn' argument and can add members based upon financial and current member needs. OKST and TT might not be the type of schools the Carolina faithful want at their wine and cheese party, but if those additions will land the ACC Texas, they're now more apt to roll out the welcome mat for such schools. Combined with the addition of getting in the permanent Bowl rotation and to me the delta from where the ACC started from to where they ended IMO was simply greater than what the SEC accomplished.

The above is really just a TL;DR version of saying...

(07-24-2014 06:19 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The ACC won is as much as they did the better job of surviving.
07-25-2014 01:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #57
RE: What if Realignment was over? Who came out ahead and who didn't and why?
(07-25-2014 01:57 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(07-24-2014 06:19 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(07-23-2014 07:39 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I decided to evaluate this by schools and then conferences...

Winning Schools: Rutgers, Utah, Louisville, TCU and ND* (The Irish deal with ACC gives the the flexibility and exposure they desire)

Losing Schools: Cincinnati, UConn and USF.

Conferences is IMO a tougher nut to crack because of the various metrics one can use to evaluate overall performance. My rankings are based on the overall change in money and stability prior to realignment.

1. B1G - Going to 12 created a CCG. Additions 13 and 14 while not great on the field, will allow Delany to leverage the BTN and fill the Chicago coffers.

2. ACC - Adding ND bought CFB credibility while Louisville addition stabilized the conference and appeased Clemson and FSU. The loss of UMD will not adversely affect the league.

3. SEC - A conference that was stable, popular and profitable added two teams to provided enough justification to create a conference network. While this will be a boon for the likes of Ole Miss and Kentucky, individual teams were able to profit quite nicely with their own T3 deals.

4. PAC - Added to teams to create a CCG and pull down a handsome TV deal. Yet exposure remained relatively the same.

5. B12 - Decreased overall footprint combined with a loss of major brands forced the conference to make hasty additions to maintain viability. The conferences entire existence rests upon the whims of one team.

Vandiver, I respect you and your opinions, but the part I bolded is exactly why I do not agree with your analysis here. Alabama was making between 9 - 10 million on T3. Florida was the leader with the Sunshine Network deal at 13 million. Both will be making more with the SECN by year 3. When the DirectTV issue gets settled we will be looking in the 15 million range or higher. That's the piece that we need to totally saturate our footprint. Comcast gives us broader coverage nationally as will UVerse. Dish just isn't that big yet in our area.

If adding Missouri and A&M landed us a network then they were much more important additions than you have given them credit for. Missouri and A&M landed us a number of significant markets, have netted us a Heisman and a division champ, and brought in between them a potential 35 million viewers.

In the game of realignment those two exceed for us our expectations for every one but a North Carolina and Virginia school. If trends hold true for Oklahoma the way the have for Nebraska both will be eventually be more valuable to the SEC in terms of potential revenue generators than the Sooners long term. No doubt Oklahoma's cache is the better short term boost. Texas is a big fish but one that comes with much difficulty. A&M fits right in and Missouri only needs a little time.

With regards to the Big 10 Maryland and Rutgers meet their needs and do for them what A&M and Missouri did for us.

With regards to the ACC I profoundly disagree with your assessment. Maryland was not much of a sports loss but as a founding member of the ACC, a stalwart academic institution, and a cultural and geographic fit Louisville can't touch them. As a sports institution Louisville will amply fill their void. But remember what the ACC is always touting. It's not sports. It's their academics. In that regard they all know that Louisville is not an on par replacement of Maryland and is a cultural and geographic outlier, just not a severe one like West Virginia is to the Big 12.

Notre Dame brings cache, but not much money. Football is N.D.'s cash cow and their home games belong to them and not the ACC. I could concur with your assessment of the ACC had N.D. joined in full.

I also still see potential trouble ahead for the ACC. The Network issue could yet prove to be an Achilles heel for them with the Big 10 sure to get a leg up in a year and with the SEC's gap widening with them.

No I think there were clearly two winners in realignment, the SEC and Big 10 and how you rank them is truthfully debatable. The ACC won is as much as they did the better job of surviving. The PAC added two teams and that is about all I can say for them. Had they landed Texas and Oklahoma I would declare them to be the winners, but they didn't. Had Oklahoma and Texas landed Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and Georgia Tech I would have given them a much higher rating, but instead they got West Virginia and T.C.U., one a total outlier and the other the #5 school in a state they had sewed up. Not to mention they lost 2 strong regional brands, a national brand, and 4 AAU schools (Nebraska still was at the time).

Well, time will bear out all things here. But I don't think realignment is over and I'll discuss it with you in a PM so as not to be too inflammatory to those who hope that it is over.

JR,

Disagreements are why message boards exist in the first place! Clearly, we depart with each other regarding the rankings of the ACC vs. the SEC. I'll try to lay out my position with the following:

In 2008, the SEC signed a deal with ESPN that was slated to pay the member schools between 12-15 million a year. Schools with T3 deals would get their extra 6-9 million and thus not have been that far behind the B1G. Based upon the projected numbers for the SECN, that 2008 was undervalued. But I still agreed with Slive's decision because to me, getting the SEC across on multiple ESPN channels all day Saturday trumped consolidating all that content in on one channel. Additionally, the investment in the 2008 ESPN deal for the average SEC consumer was not nearly as steep and what the SECN will eventually be. I just think between the increase in cable rates along with the out pricing of the stadium experience may kill the passion for Southern football for many fans. It certainly isn't cultivating it.

The ACC on the other hand had a different set of priorities starting first and foremost with it's competition with the Big East. Much like the Highlander, there could be only one East Coast Conference. Adding Pitt and Syracuse proved to be the death knell for the Big East, with the added bonus of shaking loose ND. Next, Swafford aligned the ACC with ESPN in a way no conference had done before. I think the ACC Commish knew that what his conference lacked in nature CFB passion could be made up for with security and wider distribution. But considering that Swafford kept Raycom Sports alive so it could have simply been dumb luck.

Regardless, the combination of these moves in my mind lessened the blow that losing a founding member like UMD represented. Plus, UMD moving allowed the ACC to add Louisville, thus freeing the conference from the yoke academic pretentiousness. Should the ACC need to expand again, it is no longer constrained by the 'UConn' argument and can add members based upon financial and current member needs. OKST and TT might not be the type of schools the Carolina faithful want at their wine and cheese party, but if those additions will land the ACC Texas, they're now more apt to roll out the welcome mat for such schools. Combined with the addition of getting in the permanent Bowl rotation and to me the delta from where the ACC started from to where they ended IMO was simply greater than what the SEC accomplished.

The above is really just a TL;DR version of saying...

(07-24-2014 06:19 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The ACC won is as much as they did the better job of surviving.

I like the highlander reference. My question is did Swofford writhe in power transformation after he beheaded the Big East or did he simply channel Aresco?
07-25-2014 05:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,233
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 762
I Root For: Carolina
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #58
RE: What if Realignment was over? Who came out ahead and who didn't and why?
(07-23-2014 07:39 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I decided to evaluate this by schools and then conferences...

Winning Schools: Rutgers, Utah, Louisville, TCU and ND* (The Irish deal with ACC gives the the flexibility and exposure they desire)

Losing Schools: Cincinnati, UConn and USF.

Conferences is IMO a tougher nut to crack because of the various metrics one can use to evaluate overall performance. My rankings are based on the overall change in money and stability prior to realignment.

1. B1G - Going to 12 created a CCG. Additions 13 and 14 while not great on the field, will allow Delany to leverage the BTN and fill the Chicago coffers.

2. ACC - Adding ND bought CFB credibility while Louisville addition stabilized the conference and appeased Clemson and FSU. The loss of UMD will not adversely affect the league.

3. SEC - A conference that was stable, popular and profitable added two teams to provided enough justification to create a conference network. While this will be a boon for the likes of Ole Miss and Kentucky, individual teams were able to profit quite nicely with their own T3 deals.

4. PAC - Added to teams to create a CCG and pull down a handsome TV deal. Yet exposure remained relatively the same.

5. B12 - Decreased overall footprint combined with a loss of major brands forced the conference to make hasty additions to maintain viability. The conferences entire existence rests upon the whims of one team.

Vandiver49,
The ACC gaining a permanent foothold on the western side of the Appalachian mountains will prove to be HUGE as we move forward. Other than the sting of betrayal, you are correct in that the loss of Maryland is minimal.
07-27-2014 03:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,675
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 358
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #59
RE: What if Realignment was over? Who came out ahead and who didn't and why?
On the value of Rutgers, I really think it's just a matter of different conferences valuing different things from schools.

1. ACC: They valued strong football tradition, name value, and academics and didn't care about being smaller and private.
-Given those values, they went after the most established brands that fit academically (Pitt and Syracuse). Later, with many cries about football being neglected, they compensated and went for the largest football program left in Louisville.

2. The SEC valued markets, some football brand, and being able to be called southern (they didn't need more really strong teams though).
-If forced to take a Big East school to go along with Texas A&M, the conference was almost certainly going for West Virginia. Missouri worked better though when markets were considered.

3. The Big 12 valued the name brand value.
-They took TCU whom had been in the news a lot and just came off a Rose Bowl and West Virginia who was the strongest name brand from the old Big East.
Note: Before the ACC raid of Pitt and Syracuse, there was talk of an eastern Big 12 wing. Had it been able to go for Pitt and/or Syracuse, the conference might have decided markets were more important in its plans.

4. The Big Ten valued flagship status, AAU membership, and recruiting grounds.
-While the Big Ten probably could have easily had Syracuse, Rutgers was a flagship with potential to carry at least much of New Jersey, they had AAU status, and they would make recruiting New Jersey easier. Syracuse didn't offer those advantages (which were less important to the ACC).

(07-24-2014 08:26 PM)jhawkmvp Wrote:  Nice breakdown. Some comments.

I would put Utah and TCU both as 1a and 1b. They both jumped from a G5 to P5 conference. Both would still be G5 if a few moves had happened in realignment (primarily 6 B12 schools going to PAC in 2010).

WVU should be in that group of former Big East schools as a big winner, or if you hate the geography, then at least a moderate winner. They secured a P5 spot and are not in Cincinnati, UConn, or USF shoes of getting relegated to the G5. Plus, they will get a huge revenue increase. They might break into the $100M AD revenue club when fully vested in the B12.

A few comments related to the former B12 schools:

Your A&M comment is spot on. Worse case for A&M is that they end up an also ran in the SEC like they were in the B12 (neutral). Best case, they become a national power being the Texas school in the SEC (huge gain). Either way they gained their own identity out of Texas's shadow and differentiated themselves from TTU.

CU made a good decision they were always kind of an outlier culturally in the B8 and were definitely an outlier in the B12. They pull tons of students from CA and have a huge alum base there. Gained stability, though for them the PAC has always been waiting with open arms.

MU gained stability. I think that was their main motivation in realignment and they have a great new home.

I would have put NU last. NU was the school that would have thrived in a smaller, ten school B12 if MU had been taken by the B1G instead in 2010. NU would have seen OU come back on the schedule every year and would have added Texas as well. There is so much bad blood there that it would have become an awesome rivalry, if played annually. They would have gotten 2 games in Texas every year to help bump up their recruiting there. This would have been a chance for them to regain their glory. Instead their best days are behind them IMO. However, like MU they moved for stability and got a great new home. I can't blame them for that.

What's interesting, in hindsight, is that the B1G should have taken MU in 2010. Then the SEC probably ends up with WVU in 2011, if A&M still decided to move. It would have set up a later expansion of KU/NU/OU/UT. I think the SEC really threw a wrench in B1G plans by taking MU. I think they had MU pegged for a later expansion and thought MU had no other strong option so they would be there down the road.

Great post.

1. I simply forgot to list West Virginia somehow. I would list them in the moderate range. Although in retrospect, I think if the Big 12 had taken Louisville and the ACC taken West Virginia, the fits all around would have been a tad better (but I would have taken West Virginia then too).

2. I hadn't even considered the possibility of Nebraska in a 10 team Big 12, but that really would have worked nice. You would have Nebraska-Oklahoma as season ending again and you are right that they would have thrived. As far as additions go, them to the Big Ten is the one I'm happiest with, but I think you are right that would have been their best case scenario.

3. I don't think the SEC taking Mizzou actually effected the Big Ten at all. While they looked around in 2010, they were content at 12 until the PAC-12 alliance died and the ACC made it's grand assault on the east coast. That move required an east coast move and Missouri probably still wouldn't have been included even if they'd been available.
07-27-2014 08:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lenvillecards Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,458
Joined: Nov 2013
Reputation: 376
I Root For: Louisville
Location:
Post: #60
Re: What if Realignment was over? Who came out ahead and who didn't and why?
Couldnt Louisville be considered a bridge school for the ACC?

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2
07-28-2014 01:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.