+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: What are the conf realignment myths that need to be debunked? (/thread-678402.html)
What are the conf realignment myths that need to be debunked? - john01992 - 02-23-2014 05:16 PM
1. chicago can rejoin the big ten at any time and the b10 would be forced to take them and even have to kick out the newest b10 member just to include them
2. the SEC "gentleman agreements" regarding ville, cu, fsu, & GT.
3. a school can't play olympic sports in one conference and football in another
i am sure there are plenty of others
RE: What are the conf realignment myths that need to be debunked? - Rabbit_in_Red - 02-23-2014 05:35 PM
#3 is true. If a conference offers a sport and your university offers it, you cannot play that sport in another conference. Notre Dame can get away with what they do with football because they're not playing football in ANY conference and are going independent. Anyone, technically, can do that...but Notre Dame couldn't play basketball in the ACC and football in the B1G for example.
#2 there's no way of really proving or disproving. I think of a school brought a tremendous value to the conference, all bets would be off...but what school would bring that level of value to the SEC to merit pissing off current members?
RE: What are the conf realignment myths that need to be debunked? - bitcruncher - 02-23-2014 05:35 PM
Here's one for you to add to the list.
Texas is going to bail on the B12 when the GoR expires.
RE: What are the conf realignment myths that need to be debunked? - IceJus10 - 02-23-2014 05:35 PM
#3 is sorta true...
You can only PLAY sports in another conference if your main conference DOES NOT officially sponsor said sport. So schools in non-FBS conferences (A-10, WAC, Big West, etc) can play FBS football in an FBS conference as a football-only affiliate member, because their conferences do not sponsor FBS football. However, NO school can play a sport in another conference, if their conference sponsors the same sport at the same level.
RE: What are the conf realignment myths that need to be debunked? - john01992 - 02-23-2014 05:38 PM
(02-23-2014 05:35 PM)bitcruncher Wrote: Here's one for you to add to the list.
Texas is going to bail on the B12 when the GoR expires.
that is a hypothetical scenario if anything.
i am talking about actual statements of X can't happen because of Y due to some rule/contract
RE: What are the conf realignment myths that need to be debunked? - john01992 - 02-23-2014 05:39 PM
(02-23-2014 05:35 PM)IceJus10 Wrote: #3 is sorta true...
You can only PLAY sports in another conference if your main conference DOES NOT officially sponsor said sport. So schools in non-FBS conferences (A-10, WAC, Big West, etc) can play FBS football in an FBS conference as a football-only affiliate member, because their conferences do not sponsor FBS football. However, NO school can play a sport in another conference, if their conference sponsors the same sport at the same level.
is their an actual NCAA rule that says this?
RE: What are the conf realignment myths that need to be debunked? - Rabbit_in_Red - 02-23-2014 05:40 PM
(02-23-2014 05:35 PM)bitcruncher Wrote: Here's one for you to add to the list.
Texas is going to bail on the B12 when the GoR expires.
Texas's desire to leave the BigXII's half the reason we've had all the realignment we've had. Don't hold your breath on this one.
RE: What are the conf realignment myths that need to be debunked? - johnbragg - 02-23-2014 05:48 PM
When Boise STate was joining the Big East for football, the original plan was that they would rejoin the WAC for Olympic sports. The WAC was still an FBS conference at that point. So the president and AD of BSU, and Kent Benson of the WAC and now Sun Belt, say #3 is a myth.
So there's no NCAA rule barring, say, UMass from joining the AAC for Olympic sports while still playing football in the MAC. (The MAC wouldn't sign off on it, but that's a MAC issue.)
RE: What are the conf realignment myths that need to be debunked? - Captain Bearcat - 02-23-2014 05:49 PM
Here is a myth that needs to be debunked:
"It's all about the money."
If it truly was all about the money, UNC and UVA would have joined the Big Ten or SEC a long time ago. Texas probably would have joined the PAC or the Big 10, and Notre Dame certainly would have joined the Big 10. The UAA and Ivy schools never would have dropped down to D-3.
Some schools value their institutional identity or their traditions more than money.
Notice that I'm not even talking about politics, which is also a huge deal in conference reallignment (i.e. Texas' "Tech problem," Penn State blackballing Pitt, or UVA pushing for VT's inclusion in the ACC).
RE: What are the conf realignment myths that need to be debunked? - john01992 - 02-23-2014 05:58 PM
(02-23-2014 05:49 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: Here is a myth that needs to be debunked:
"It's all about the money."
If it truly was all about the money, UNC and UVA would have joined the Big Ten or SEC a long time ago. Texas probably would have joined the PAC or the Big 10, and Notre Dame certainly would have joined the Big 10. The UAA and Ivy schools never would have dropped down to D-3.
Some schools value their institutional identity or their traditions more than money.
Notice that I'm not even talking about politics, which is also a huge deal in conference reallignment (i.e. Texas' "Tech problem," Penn State blackballing Pitt, or UVA pushing for VT's inclusion in the ACC).
this^^^^^
my approach to conf. realignment has been not making assumptions....only make your assumptions based off of evidence & proven trends.
everything I have seen says that improving a schools academic association is the driving force behind why schools leave (academic ranking/quotes).
the only quotes i see about money have to do with revenue disparity between conference. if every conference was making just 5 mill then every conference would be perfectly happy with the way things are. it was the pac/b10 making giant money grabs that forced everyone else to try to catch up. and heres the ultimate proof to this: there hasn't been any conference realignment for the past year & a half when all 5 power conferences matched their tier 1 & 2 tv payouts. every conference is supposedly within 500k of each other and it just so happens there hasn't been realignment since then.
RE: What are the conf realignment myths that need to be debunked? - TopperCard - 02-23-2014 05:59 PM
(02-23-2014 05:48 PM)johnbragg Wrote: When Boise STate was joining the Big East for football, the original plan was that they would rejoin the WAC for Olympic sports. The WAC was still an FBS conference at that point. So the president and AD of BSU, and Kent Benson of the WAC and now Sun Belt, say #3 is a myth.
So there's no NCAA rule barring, say, UMass from joining the AAC for Olympic sports while still playing football in the MAC. (The MAC wouldn't sign off on it, but that's a MAC issue.)
This is false. When Boise was planning on keeping its Olympic sports in the WAC and play football in the Big East, the WAC had already decided to drop football.
This is in fact an NCAA rule, I believe it's buried in section 20 of the bylaws. I've looked it up before, but I'm not going to search for it.
RE: What are the conf realignment myths that need to be debunked? - bitcruncher - 02-23-2014 06:24 PM
(02-23-2014 05:40 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:Don't hold your breath waiting on Texas to leave. It's a pipe dream, dude.(02-23-2014 05:35 PM)bitcruncher Wrote: Here's one for you to add to the list.Texas's desire to leave the BigXII's half the reason we've had all the realignment we've had. Don't hold your breath on this one.
Texas is going to bail on the B12 when the GoR expires.
RE: What are the conf realignment myths that need to be debunked? - 10thMountain - 02-23-2014 06:55 PM
I've never heard that one about Chicago and the B10...what is the basis for it?
RE: What are the conf realignment myths that need to be debunked? - bullet - 02-23-2014 07:03 PM
Here are a couple:
The 4 who left the Big 12 left because of unequal revenue sharing. All were in favor of unequal revenue sharing.
The Big 12 had the most unequal revenue sharing. At the time, the Big East and Pac 12 were much more unequal.
Texas got a special deal on the LHN from the other schools to keep the Big 12 together. Texas always had the right to do a network.
Nebraska, Colorado and Missouri left the Big 12 because of Texas. Totally false. A&M leaving because of Texas is not the reason according to their president, but it is at least debatable as a partial motive. The rest aren't.
RE: What are the conf realignment myths that need to be debunked? - ncbeta - 02-23-2014 07:21 PM
(02-23-2014 06:55 PM)10thMountain Wrote: I've never heard that one about Chicago and the B10...what is the basis for it?
"From 1892 to 1939, the Maroons were a major college football power. The University of Chicago was a founding member of the Big Ten conference and the Maroons were coached by Amos Alonzo Stagg, one of the game's pioneers, for 41 seasons."
"However, The University of Chicago abolished its football program in 1939 and withdrew from the Big Ten in 1946."
Now they are DIII
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Maroons_football
Their old stomping grounds:
![[Image: StaggField.JPG]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/StaggField.JPG)
RE: What are the conf realignment myths that need to be debunked? - adcorbett - 02-23-2014 07:29 PM
(02-23-2014 07:03 PM)bullet Wrote: Texas got a special deal on the LHN from the other schools to keep the Big 12 together. Texas always had the right to do a network.
Texas did get a special deal, but it was unrelated to the network. Texas, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma were promised a guaranteed $20 million by Kansas, K State, Missouri, and Iowa St even if it meant coming from their own monies to do so. Baylor may have been a part of it as well. I remember it was odd that certain teams had to guarantee the payment, but Ok St was not one of them. It was the ultimate "this will never work" setup.
RE: What are the conf realignment myths that need to be debunked? - john01992 - 02-23-2014 07:38 PM
(02-23-2014 07:03 PM)bullet Wrote: Here are a couple:
The 4 who left the Big 12 left because of unequal revenue sharing. All were in favor of unequal revenue sharing.
The Big 12 had the most unequal revenue sharing. At the time, the Big East and Pac 12 were much more unequal.
Texas got a special deal on the LHN from the other schools to keep the Big 12 together. Texas always had the right to do a network.
Nebraska, Colorado and Missouri left the Big 12 because of Texas. Totally false. A&M leaving because of Texas is not the reason according to their president, but it is at least debatable as a partial motive. The rest aren't.
you are right about the pac but can you elaborate on the big east's unequal revenue sharing model?
RE: What are the conf realignment myths that need to be debunked? - john01992 - 02-23-2014 07:40 PM
(02-23-2014 06:55 PM)10thMountain Wrote: I've never heard that one about Chicago and the B10...what is the basis for it?
the basis for it is that because chicago is still part of the b10s academic branch (the CIC) they technically never truly left the b10 and still count as a full b10 member but inactive in every sport.
RE: What are the conf realignment myths that need to be debunked? - adcorbett - 02-23-2014 07:42 PM
Prior to 2004, the BE TV contract was weighted by TV appearances similar to the Big XII. It wasn't as extreme as the Big 12. However the proposed BE revenue model to try to keep Miami, would have been extremely unequal.
RE: What are the conf realignment myths that need to be debunked? - Duke Dawg - 02-23-2014 07:43 PM
biggest myth?
that it's over