(03-12-2013 10:58 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  That sounds great but they would also make FAR less money. If you are a school that has a choice in the matter, like say a Houston or a Cincinnati, why not cut out the dead weight and just align with the strongest schools in that other group - which is exactly what the A-12 appears to be doing.

The problem is, the A12 or what ever the name is going to be is not going to be the best of the rest. The MWC has Boise State, Air Force and a few other very good programs. CUSA at the moment still has Southern Miss, Tulsa an addition of La Tech. America 12 will have Cincy, Houston, UCF, USF and ECU, but Cincy is a hit and miss on how long they will be around.

So a best of the rest does not exist, why not go regional and save money and hopefully create interest in local games again. If you are not in the Big 4.5, you can look at your banana all day long and proclaim it's length and girth to be impressive, but all you really have is a baby carrot when the nut cutting is done.

(03-12-2013 03:25 PM)Eagleweiser Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 10:58 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  That sounds great but they would also make FAR less money. If you are a school that has a choice in the matter, like say a Houston or a Cincinnati, why not cut out the dead weight and just align with the strongest schools in that other group - which is exactly what the A-12 appears to be doing.

The problem is, the A12 or what ever the name is going to be is not going to be the best of the rest. The MWC has Boise State, Air Force and a few other very good programs. CUSA at the moment still has Southern Miss, Tulsa an addition of La Tech. America 12 will have Cincy, Houston, UCF, USF and ECU, but Cincy is a hit and miss on how long they will be around.

So a best of the rest does not exist, why not go regional and save money and hopefully create interest in local games again. If you are not in the Big 4.5, you can look at your banana all day long and proclaim it's length and girth to be impressive, but all you really have is a baby carrot when the nut cutting is done.

Just being regional doesn't create interest. The MAC couldn't be more regional and there's almost no interest.

Outside of the Big 4, is there going to be that much interest anyway? They are slowly degrading the Gang of Five in bowl status, already have in money, would not doubt the big 2 move toward not scheduling Gof5 in the future. So, why not go regional, never going to generate the same interest unless two teams are playing at the end of the season for a BCS contract of playoff spot anyway.

(03-12-2013 03:54 PM)Eagleweiser Wrote:  Outside of the Big 4, is there going to be that much interest anyway? They are slowly degrading the Gang of Five in bowl status, already have in money, would not doubt the big 2 move toward not scheduling Gof5 in the future. So, why not go regional, never going to generate the same interest unless two teams are playing at the end of the season for a BCS contract of playoff spot anyway.

ECU generates interest, and ECU schedules the regional teams that actually do draw interest OOC. That just sounds like a bunch of giving up, and that is what would kill interest in ECU athletics if our administration made a move that basically said that ECU isn't even going to try to better itself and is just going to align with whatever schools that are nearby and not in a contract league.

(03-12-2013 10:58 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  That sounds great but they would also make FAR less money. If you are a school that has a choice in the matter, like say a Houston or a Cincinnati, why not cut out the dead weight and just align with the strongest schools in that other group - which is exactly what the A-12 appears to be doing.

Tulane...?

(03-12-2013 03:25 PM)Eagleweiser Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 10:58 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  That sounds great but they would also make FAR less money. If you are a school that has a choice in the matter, like say a Houston or a Cincinnati, why not cut out the dead weight and just align with the strongest schools in that other group - which is exactly what the A-12 appears to be doing.

The problem is, the A12 or what ever the name is going to be is not going to be the best of the rest. The MWC has Boise State, Air Force and a few other very good programs. CUSA at the moment still has Southern Miss, Tulsa an addition of La Tech. America 12 will have Cincy, Houston, UCF, USF and ECU, but Cincy is a hit and miss on how long they will be around.

So a best of the rest does not exist, why not go regional and save money and hopefully create interest in local games again. If you are not in the Big 4.5, you can look at your banana all day long and proclaim it's length and girth to be impressive, but all you really have is a baby carrot when the nut cutting is done.

Because regional is crap. Organizing your schedules based simply on who is close is no better than selecting schedules based on elevation, time zone, or topography. Its still totally random and doesnt mean your fan base gives two craps about playing those teams. Your more than welcome build your schedule around Troy, S Alabama, UAB, ULala, LaTech, Tulane----thats your region. If thats really what you want--dive in.

I believe that the best way is to align is based on institution size, historys, athletic budgets, and yes--geography. Nothing wrong with sorting by geography--as long as your sorting like minded similar institutions that a school considers its peers. The problem with the gang of 5 schools is that the most of the geographically convenient schools that gang of 5 members see as their peers are in power conferences. Thus, it means that to align with and play against similar schools---you may have to travel farther than what would be deemed ideal. Chalk it up as just another cost of being a left out have not.

As far as being the best of the rest--likely before 2015 Cinci and UConn move to the ACC. If Tulsa, S Miss, and Navy join in 2015--isnt that pretty much the best of the rest for the eastern half of the US? Thats about the best than be done with the materials at hand and the cards that have been dealt to date.

Yes, a regional conference for UConn:

UConn
UMass
Buffalo
Marshall
Temple

Then beg these schools to jump to FBS:

New Hampshire
Maine
Stony Brook
Albany
Central Connecticut
Wagner

A compact, regional conference would be far better than one with Cincinnati, USF, UCF, Memphis, ECU, SMU, Tulane, and Houston.

(03-12-2013 01:38 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 11:06 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 09:18 AM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  For the record, conference realignment has been going on for 80 years and every school has always followed the money.

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^. It amazes me how people look at a 5 year window and assume it's always been that way. Makes me think most people are under the age of 30 that post their opinions on these forums.

The schools of the Pac-12 have competed under several different conference names. But the 8 teams located in Washington, Oregon, and California have played in the same conference pretty much every year since 1928 (a major cheating scandal in the 1950s threw the old Pacific Coast Conference into disarray, and it took a few years to get things back under control), and they only accepted two new members (Arizona and AZ State) from then until Utah and Colorado.

The Southeastern Conference did not accept any new members from 1933 until Arkansas/South Carolina in 1991/92.

The ACC only accepted one new member (Georgia Tech) from the league's founding in 1953 until Florida State in 1991/92, and only those 2 until the ACC/Big East war of 2003.

The old Big 8 did not accept any new members from 1947 until Baylor in 1995, unless you count Oklahoma State, which was in, then out in the 1920s, then in again in the 1950s.

The Big Ten only accepted one new member (Michigan State) from 1912 until Penn State in 1990/91, and only those 2 until Nebraska.

So yes, realignment has existed all along. But it has never unfolded at the kind of breakneck pace we have seen in recent years.

While the 80's were a period of relative calm for the SEC, SWC, Big 10, and Pac-10, that was an aberration. You can't go very long without a big shift among major conferences in the decades prior to that.

I assume that everyone already knows that the pre-war period was very unstable, so let's look at 1945-1980:


1947 - Wash U leaves MVC, Chicago leaves Big 10
1948 - Creighton leaves MVC, Bradley joins MVC
1949 - Detroit joins MVC
1950 - Montana leaves PCC for Mountain States, Michigan State joins Big 10
1951 - New Mexico leaves Border for Mountain States, Northern Arizona leaves Border for indy, Houston joins MVC
1953 - ACC breaks away from Southern Conference
1956 - Texas Tech leaves Border for SWC, Drake joins MVC
1957 - Oklahoma State leaves MVC, Cincinnati and North Texas join MVC
1958 - Colorado leaves Mountain States for Big 8, Oklahoma State leaves MVC to rejoin Big 8
1959 - Amid recruiting scandal at PCC schools, Idaho, Oregon, Oregon State, and Washington State leave PCC for indy status
1960 - Houston leaves MVC
1962 - WAC forms, taking the best teams from the Skyline (aka Mountain States) and Border Conferences. Skyline and Border conferences cease to exist.
1963 - Louisville joins MVC
1964 - Oregon, Oregon State, and Washington State join Pac, ending all hope that they'll join the WAC, Georgia Tech and Tulane leave SEC due to recruiting scandals at SEC schools
1967 - Colorado State and UTEP join WAC
1968 - Memphis joins MVC
1970 - Cincinnati leaves MVC, NMSU and West Texas State join MVC
1975 - Metro Conference forms from indys and the best of the MVC, Eastern 8 forms from indys. MVC ceases to be a major conference.
1976 - Houston joins SWC, Florida State joins Metro
1978 - NCAA Division i-aa forms, Arizona and Arizona State leave WAC for the Pac-8, replaced by San Diego State, Air Force, and Hawai'i
1979 - Big East forms, Georgia Tech leaves Metro for ACC, Virginia Tech joins Metro, Eastern 8 ceases to be a major conference after Pitt and Villanova leave

And yes, all of these count as major conferences, with the possible exception of the Border Conference. Before you discount the Missouri Valley, they had 16 Final Fours and 4 national titles from 1945-1980. And back then, basketball was just as important as football in conference reallignment.

Every conference will always some deadweight. Some more than others.

(03-12-2013 08:58 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 01:38 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 11:06 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 09:18 AM)Lord2FLI Wrote:  For the record, conference realignment has been going on for 80 years and every school has always followed the money.

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^. It amazes me how people look at a 5 year window and assume it's always been that way. Makes me think most people are under the age of 30 that post their opinions on these forums.

The schools of the Pac-12 have competed under several different conference names. But the 8 teams located in Washington, Oregon, and California have played in the same conference pretty much every year since 1928 (a major cheating scandal in the 1950s threw the old Pacific Coast Conference into disarray, and it took a few years to get things back under control), and they only accepted two new members (Arizona and AZ State) from then until Utah and Colorado.

The Southeastern Conference did not accept any new members from 1933 until Arkansas/South Carolina in 1991/92.

The ACC only accepted one new member (Georgia Tech) from the league's founding in 1953 until Florida State in 1991/92, and only those 2 until the ACC/Big East war of 2003.

The old Big 8 did not accept any new members from 1947 until Baylor in 1995, unless you count Oklahoma State, which was in, then out in the 1920s, then in again in the 1950s.

The Big Ten only accepted one new member (Michigan State) from 1912 until Penn State in 1990/91, and only those 2 until Nebraska.

So yes, realignment has existed all along. But it has never unfolded at the kind of breakneck pace we have seen in recent years.

While the 80's were a period of relative calm for the SEC, SWC, Big 10, and Pac-10, that was an aberration. You can't go very long without a big shift among major conferences in the decades prior to that.

I assume that everyone already knows that the pre-war period was very unstable, so let's look at 1945-1980:


1947 - Wash U leaves MVC, Chicago leaves Big 10
1948 - Creighton leaves MVC, Bradley joins MVC
1949 - Detroit joins MVC
1950 - Montana leaves PCC for Mountain States, Michigan State joins Big 10
1951 - New Mexico leaves Border for Mountain States, Northern Arizona leaves Border for indy, Houston joins MVC
1953 - ACC breaks away from Southern Conference
1956 - Texas Tech leaves Border for SWC, Drake joins MVC
1957 - Oklahoma State leaves MVC, Cincinnati and North Texas join MVC
1958 - Colorado leaves Mountain States for Big 8, Oklahoma State leaves MVC to rejoin Big 8
1959 - Amid recruiting scandal at PCC schools, Idaho, Oregon, Oregon State, and Washington State leave PCC for indy status
1960 - Houston leaves MVC
1962 - WAC forms, taking the best teams from the Skyline (aka Mountain States) and Border Conferences. Skyline and Border conferences cease to exist.
1963 - Louisville joins MVC
1964 - Oregon, Oregon State, and Washington State join Pac, ending all hope that they'll join the WAC, Georgia Tech and Tulane leave SEC due to recruiting scandals at SEC schools
1967 - Colorado State and UTEP join WAC
1968 - Memphis joins MVC
1970 - Cincinnati leaves MVC, NMSU and West Texas State join MVC
1975 - Metro Conference forms from indys and the best of the MVC, Eastern 8 forms from indys. MVC ceases to be a major conference.
1976 - Houston joins SWC, Florida State joins Metro
1978 - NCAA Division i-aa forms, Arizona and Arizona State leave WAC for the Pac-8, replaced by San Diego State, Air Force, and Hawai'i
1979 - Big East forms, Georgia Tech leaves Metro for ACC, Virginia Tech joins Metro, Eastern 8 ceases to be a major conference after Pitt and Villanova leave

And yes, all of these count as major conferences, with the possible exception of the Border Conference. Before you discount the Missouri Valley, they had 16 Final Fours and 4 national titles from 1945-1980. And back then, basketball was just as important as football in conference reallignment.

Correction:
1947 - Colorado joined the Missouri Valley Intercollegiate Athletic Association, commonly known as the Big Six, then to be known as the Big Seven.

(03-12-2013 03:25 PM)Eagleweiser Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 10:58 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  That sounds great but they would also make FAR less money. If you are a school that has a choice in the matter, like say a Houston or a Cincinnati, why not cut out the dead weight and just align with the strongest schools in that other group - which is exactly what the A-12 appears to be doing.

The problem is, the A12 or what ever the name is going to be is not going to be the best of the rest. The MWC has Boise State, Air Force and a few other very good programs. CUSA at the moment still has Southern Miss, Tulsa an addition of La Tech. America 12 will have Cincy, Houston, UCF, USF and ECU, but Cincy is a hit and miss on how long they will be around.

So a best of the rest does not exist, why not go regional and save money and hopefully create interest in local games again. If you are not in the Big 4.5, you can look at your banana all day long and proclaim it's length and girth to be impressive, but all you really have is a baby carrot when the nut cutting is done.

In a perfect world after the Big4 get consolidated into their Super Conference world the Go5 will create a best of the rest West Coast Conference and a Best of the rest East Coast Conference with a scheduling alliance and Bowl game between the two. Quite frankly there are enough programs in the Go5 that I would love to see ECU play that I could care less if we ever played a Big4 school again.

In the world of supply and demand, I also believe there are plenty of fan bases within the G05 that travel great to bowl games to generate some shadow bowls at the big sites like New Orleans, Atlanta, Miami, Dallas, Tempe etc.. The Big4 pretty much want all their bowl games after Christmas so we might have to resign ourselves to playing Bowls before Christmas but there is enough time between the end of the regular season and Christmas to schedule quality Bowls and good destinations for our fans. End of the day towns that host bowl games want to make money, sell hotel rooms etc..and we can provide that for them. Just look at what Louisiana-Lafayette did for the New Orleans Bowl the last two years with attendance. If ECU fans have a shot at a good bowl game within 10hrs driving time we will certainly sell enough tickets and hotel rooms to make a significant economic impact for the host city.

the main reason that tv contracts have gone up so much in the past few years boils down to one simple device the dvr. most people record network shows and watch them at their timetable and skip the ads that the networks make their money off of. the only programing that the vast majority of the audience watches live are live sporting events. that means networks can charge more for those slots which makes college sports much more valuable to networks than ten years ago.

I think the idea that a college athletic department should pursue making a profit is just fundamentally flawed. After all, I get a steady diet of rapacious capitalism already. Sports were supposed to be an escape, and back when people were less obsessed with market, attendance, and TV money, they were a lot more fun. Watching teams like BYU and GT win t it all was fun. Sure, there was probably an Alabama or Auburn team that was objectively better... but does anyone outside of Alabama really enjoy college football any more? I enjoy the actual games I attend in person, but that's about it. I certainly don't enjoy all of this crap about exit fees and such.

People say it's inevitable that sports have to turn into business; inevitable or not, I think it turns a lot of people off. I can just work three hours on a Saturday and I'm not missing out on anything. It's rapacious capitalism either way.