Is it still UConn now that they're headed for the Big East and football independence?

Is it Cincinnati/USF, who both went from a P5 league and arguably the greatest basketball league to a G5 league? (Don't give me that P6 nonsense.)

Is it a school like Southern Miss, who has seen all its former C-USA rivals besides UAB move on to the American (or in the case of TCU and Louisville, P5 leagues)?

Is it West Virginia, who lost all its rivals and misses out on memberships to the SEC and ACC?

Is it someone else?

Discuss.

Idaho. You can argue that they are a great fit for the Big Sky...but they downgraded to FCS...it doesn't get any worse than that.

Great argument for Temple from UTEPDallas from the other thread, which prompted my OP question.

Quote:Post: #3RE: How Big East conference realignment shaped Rutgers present
As I mentioned in another thread a few days ago, the Big East was the best platform for Miami, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Boston College and Louisville. They are where they are today because of the Big East. The biggest loser IMO was Temple more so than UConn, Cincinnati and South Florida. The former had a relationship with most of them that goes back to their independent days and the latter even though they lost their power status, they only played football in the Big East for less than a decade.

Boise State is the school that lost out. Have a better winning percentage since 1999 who plays like a P5 school not inside a P5. They were about to joined the P6 Big East when more schools got plucked from the Big East.

How about the biggest loser to the revised CFP. Here BYU jumps out as well.
We are not the biggest losers but the money involved was a factor in the MAC issuing UMass the ultimatum.
Changing the payout for G5 conference to 1 million for up to 10 teams has kept any G5 expansion in check.

(09-18-2019 10:40 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Is it still UConn now that they're headed for the Big East and football independence?

Is it Cincinnati/USF, who both went from a P5 league and arguably the greatest basketball league to a G5 league? (Don't give me that P6 nonsense.)

Is it a school like Southern Miss, who has seen all its former C-USA rivals besides UAB move on to the American (or in the case of TCU and Louisville, P5 leagues)?

Is it West Virginia, who lost all its rivals and misses out on memberships to the SEC and ACC?

Is it someone else?

Discuss.

Not saying Cincinnati is the biggest loser, but I would like to add a few points that is often overlooked when evaluating Cincinnati's loss:

1) UC looses the long-standing Keg of Nail series with long-time regional rival, Louisville.
2) UC looses newly formed and budding regional rivalry with Pitt.
3) Xavier University, located less than 3 miles from UC campus, gets promoted to the Big East basketball conference and is now labeled a power basketball program, while UC goes to the AAC and is labeled mid-major, despite 100 years of history and support within the city of Cincinnati indicating otherwise.

UConn followed by BYU. UConn lost all of its basketball rivals and BYU saw its arch rival Utah get elevated to power status. BYU is winless against Utah since then.

Cincinnati did more with less when they were given a seat at the big table. But they were not far removed from their C-USA days and they’re now reunited with most of them in the AAC. South Florida lost the only advantage they had over Central Florida and the Golden Knights have been to three BCS/NY6 bowls since they’ve been in the same conference.

(09-18-2019 10:54 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:40 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Is it still UConn now that they're headed for the Big East and football independence?

Is it Cincinnati/USF, who both went from a P5 league and arguably the greatest basketball league to a G5 league? (Don't give me that P6 nonsense.)

Is it a school like Southern Miss, who has seen all its former C-USA rivals besides UAB move on to the American (or in the case of TCU and Louisville, P5 leagues)?

Is it West Virginia, who lost all its rivals and misses out on memberships to the SEC and ACC?

Is it someone else?

Discuss.

Not saying Cincinnati is the biggest loser, but I would like to add a few points that is often overlooked when evaluating Cincinnati's loss:

1) UC looses the long-standing Keg of Nail series with long-time regional rival, Louisville.
2) UC looses newly formed and budding regional rivalry with Pitt.
3) Xavier University, located less than 3 miles from UC campus, gets promoted to the Big East basketball conference and is now labeled a power basketball program, while UC goes to the AAC and is labeled mid-major, despite 100 years of history and support within the city of Cincinnati indicating otherwise.

The AAC is not a mid major in basketball, even with UConn leaving.

The fact that there are any 'losers' is the biggest problem. You can't have 120 FBS football teams with 10 FBS conferences get laid out so arbitrarily. You can't have obvious 'G5' power programs exist, at the same time that obvious 'P5' bottom feeders get grandfathered in.... You can't have UCF go undefeated for two straight seasons and not get a playoff spot because of arbitrary polls.

Need a real playoff with everyone having a pathway. Expand to 8 with a slot for the G5 solves that problem.

That said, all the schools discussed above are 'losers' screwed over by a corrupt system. Them that have, they don't want to share... and if they make the rules, they won't share. Problem is, they can't clearly separate either, at least from the AAC, on the field no matter how rigged the system is.

Hot Take - Maryland.

Yes, they are making much more money in the B1G than the ACC (which helped their budget deficit). However, they join the B1G East in Football (which they will never be able to finish above Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan and Michigan State in most years), and they left a superior basketball conference in the ACC, leaving behind long-time rivals in Duke, North Carolina and Virginia. Their new geographic rivals include Penn State and Rutgers, who are both subpar in men's basketball. The B1G gained a lot of value from Maryland's membership, no doubt; however, long-term, I think Maryland will lose a lot by lost associations with Virginia, UNC and Duke.

(09-18-2019 10:47 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Great argument for Temple from UTEPDallas from the other thread, which prompted my OP question.

Quote:Post: #3RE: How Big East conference realignment shaped Rutgers present
As I mentioned in another thread a few days ago, the Big East was the best platform for Miami, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Boston College and Louisville. They are where they are today because of the Big East. The biggest loser IMO was Temple more so than UConn, Cincinnati and South Florida. The former had a relationship with most of them that goes back to their independent days and the latter even though they lost their power status, they only played football in the Big East for less than a decade.

that is really a terrible argument when one looks at REALITY

since 1970 (49 seasons to 2018) Temple has had 17 winning seasons and 9 of those came before 1990

in the 14 seasons Temple was in the Big East they won 30 games TOTAL so an average win total of less than 2 games a season

they never had a winning season in those 14 years

the highest win total for any season was FOUR that came during a streak of 3 straight seasons of wining 4 games a season

in that time period they had 3 head coaches one that was there for 2 seasons and was from prior to the BE days and then two others one that lasted 5 seasons and one that lasted 7 seasons

SEVEN SEASONS and his highlight was three straight seasons of winning a MAX of four games....he actually got an 8th season as an independent when he went win less

so when you look at the reality of that total and complete garbage and the total and complete attitude of "collecting a check" it is a giant joke to say that any program that would embarrass themselves like that was somehow a loser from realignment because they were totally and completely irrelevant in the BE and worse yet they were happy with it and would have allowed it to continue forever if change was not forced upon them

and they were pretty terrible before that as well

there is no rightful way to claim to be a loser from some event (even one out of your control) when it is so clear that events in your control and your own apathy lead to your program being a total and complete disaster and only the fact that you were basically told to shove off woke you up to even try and put in a little effort

(09-18-2019 10:55 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  UConn followed by BYU. UConn lost all of its basketball rivals and BYU saw its arch rival Utah get elevated to power status. BYU is winless against Utah since then.

Eh, Syracuse will be missed, but they're getting Villanova and Georgetown back.

(09-18-2019 11:13 AM)Bogg Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:55 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  UConn followed by BYU. UConn lost all of its basketball rivals and BYU saw its arch rival Utah get elevated to power status. BYU is winless against Utah since then.

Eh, Syracuse will be missed, but they're getting Villanova and Georgetown back.

Absolutely agree. I don’t blame UConn for their decision. I might be in the minority here about supporting UConn’s decision to go indy/Big East and it might be painful at first but if NMSU can make independence work given their isolated location then UConn can make it work too.

New Mexico State and BYU have a good case.

BYU because the original WAC was in the fifth Beatle role that AAC claims now, except without the formalizing of a post-season agreement some lumped the WAC in with the majors especially when Arizona and Arizona State were in the league. We debate how hard it would be for a G5 to get to the 1-4 slots on the last day of the regular season but BYU was in a position where they were #1 on the poll taken after the last day of the regular season, they just had the issue that no ranked team would agree to go to the Holiday and they got the MNC from the polls.

BYU is in a VASTLY worst place and has lost Utah as a league game and the front range games.

New Mexico State left behind when the Border Conference blew up always wanted WAC. They had modest football success in the Valley, pretty awful in the Big East, modest success in the Sun Belt, pretty awful in the WAC, back to Sun Belt first bowl in the lifetime of many of their fans and kicked to the curb. They now exist in a WAC that lacks football and does not have one single member from the days when they dreamed of being WAC. Joining in 2005 they are the WAC's most senior member with everyone else added in 2012 or later.

(09-18-2019 11:12 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:47 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  Great argument for Temple from UTEPDallas from the other thread, which prompted my OP question.

Quote:Post: #3RE: How Big East conference realignment shaped Rutgers present
As I mentioned in another thread a few days ago, the Big East was the best platform for Miami, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, Virginia Tech, West Virginia, Boston College and Louisville. They are where they are today because of the Big East. The biggest loser IMO was Temple more so than UConn, Cincinnati and South Florida. The former had a relationship with most of them that goes back to their independent days and the latter even though they lost their power status, they only played football in the Big East for less than a decade.

that is really a terrible argument when one looks at REALITY

since 1970 (49 seasons to 2018) Temple has had 17 winning seasons and 9 of those came before 1990

in the 14 seasons Temple was in the Big East they won 30 games TOTAL so an average win total of less than 2 games a season

they never had a winning season in those 14 years

the highest win total for any season was FOUR that came during a streak of 3 straight seasons of wining 4 games a season

in that time period they had 3 head coaches one that was there for 2 seasons and was from prior to the BE days and then two others one that lasted 5 seasons and one that lasted 7 seasons

SEVEN SEASONS and his highlight was three straight seasons of winning a MAX of four games....he actually got an 8th season as an independent when he went win less

so when you look at the reality of that total and complete garbage and the total and complete attitude of "collecting a check" it is a giant joke to say that any program that would embarrass themselves like that was somehow a loser from realignment because they were totally and completely irrelevant in the BE and worse yet they were happy with it and would have allowed it to continue forever if change was not forced upon them

and they were pretty terrible before that as well

there is no rightful way to claim to be a loser from some event (even one out of your control) when it is so clear that events in your control and your own apathy lead to your program being a total and complete disaster and only the fact that you were basically told to shove off woke you up to even try and put in a little effort

Todd, it’s not just about football records. Temple used to play other Eastern independents for decades and some in the Big East until the 2004 season. That’s not the case anymore. Most if not all of those schools are in the B1G and ACC. Temple is not. Something similar happened to UTEP between the late 1990s and mid 2000s. It lost all its rivals. The football program sucked and it continues to suck (unlike Temple’s these days) but the relationship and history were lost. That’s what fans usually care about.

Rutgers in the Big East was largely mediocre, but non-descript. They had annual winnable games against BC, Pitt, Temple, etc.

Rutgers in the Big Ten is a national punchline with no end in sight.

Southern Miss

(09-18-2019 11:02 AM)Bull Wrote:  You can't have 120 FBS football teams with 10 FBS conferences get laid out so arbitrarily.

Sure you can. College sports are not a pro sports league and never will be. The universities that choose to play FBS football are not NFL team owners; they are not in any way co-equal owners who have bought into a pro league like the NFL. College conferences are and always have been loose, haphazard groupings that have more to do with historical affiliations, or sometimes marriages of convenience.

College sports are and always will be messy. Maybe it's not the best choice for the kind of sports to follow for fans who can't stand anything that isn't perfectly neat, orderly, and organized.

(09-18-2019 11:07 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  Hot Take - Maryland.

Yes, they are making much more money in the B1G than the ACC (which helped their budget deficit). However, they join the B1G East in Football (which they will never be able to finish above Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan and Michigan State in most years), and they left a superior basketball conference in the ACC, leaving behind long-time rivals in Duke, North Carolina and Virginia. Their new geographic rivals include Penn State and Rutgers, who are both subpar in men's basketball. The B1G gained a lot of value from Maryland's membership, no doubt; however, long-term, I think Maryland will lose a lot by lost associations with Virginia, UNC and Duke.

long term you think about the money though. The Big Ten will sign not one but likely TWO more tv contracts before the ACC is up again. The Big Ten is already way ahead of the ACC. They're right now(or when they get full money at least) getting 20 million more per year over the ACC. For a school that money was an issue- that's HUGE.

Cincinnati.

One decade ago, they were a single controversial second in the BXII CCG from playing Alabama for the National Championship.

Now, they've been relegated from a power conference and don't have a single regional rival with Louisville and Pitt gone.