(01-29-2023 07:23 AM)rokamortis Wrote: (01-29-2023 06:05 AM)Longhorn Wrote: It’s a new day, in essentially a new conference, made stronger and more dynamic under the reorganization that jettisoned non-FB schools and the addition of the 4 new institutions.
This is what probably runs some of the other SBC schools wrong. I see it as the additions strengthen what was already working in the SBC, not recreating the conference. The four new schools are great adds but don’t substantially alter what the SBC was. It is a stronger conference, not a new conference.
Fair enough.
Still, the people objecting (being “rubbed the wrong way” perhaps?) by my advancing the idea that the current 14 member SBC is now a “new” and more mature conference are free to grumble all they want.
The reality is the pre-2022 SBC was not functioning in a way that optimized its strengths. The “old” SBC was flawed in ways many other G5 conferences are flawed. Flaws like membership that was too geographically dispersed, or athletic missions that were too broad, institutional educational missions and student enrollments that was too disparate, or institutional financial support for athletics too weak, etc. Thankfully the correct decisions were made in focusing the mission of the “new” SBC.
Note here, I’m not saying the pre-2022 SBC members were flawed, or that the pre-2022 membership hadn’t been working hard to improve their athletic programs and promote the “old” SBC. The problem was with the conference structure, not its football members.
Indeed, the “new” 2022 SBC had to be ready for the changes to come, just as the 4 new members had to be ready. This is such an obvious point I shouldn’t have to be hammering it home.
The creation of the pre-2022 SBC was the result hard work, principally undertaken by the football schools. Let’s all honor that effort, but let’s not forget that while the “old” SBC was undergoing changes, the hard work of improving varsity athletics and clarifying priorities at the 4 new members was also ongoing. In essence, the “old” SBC and the 4 new members were growing closer, towards each other and the day they would merge.
When the Texas/OU move to the SEC was announced, the SBC and the 4 new schools were able to come together in an act of enlightened self-interest. The timing was right. All parties were ready for change.
SoMiss wanted out of CUSA, and was ready to move to the SBC on its own, Marshall, ODU and JMU, however, wanted to stick together. The SBC presidents, ADs, Commissioner Gill, and their counterparts at the 4 new schools all worked together to explore the possibilities. From that collaboration was born a new SBC and two regional divisions.
Today’s “new and improved” SBC, as envisioned and made possible through the addition of the 4 new schools, was not possible before last year. That reality doesn’t make JMU more important to the expanded SBC than any other member, but JMU was an integral part of the equation that helped shape the two regional divisions that included new members Marshall and ODU.
As I wrote in an earlier post people who argue that JMU, or any of the other new members, should have joined the SBC earlier could just as well argue penicillin should have been discovered or created earlier. That might have been nice, if doable, but it didn’t happen earlier because the circumstances or timing wasn’t right. The timing for JMU to join the SBC when App St. did wasn’t right for JMU, Marshall, ODU or SoMiss. In 2022 it was the right time, and now we can all be thankful that a new and stronger SBC has emerged.
/
G5 Conference Power Ratings Post Realignment
