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.