(04-22-2013 09:08 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 09:04 PM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 11:46 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 11:06 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Winners:

1) Notre Dame -- as mentioned above, they get an upgraded bakery, get a newly made cake and still get to eat it.

2) ACC -- yes, Notre Dame gets to eat its own cake, but they're willing to share 5 of the slices per season, something the old Big East could never achieve.

3) MAC -- no losses.

4) Missouri -- made out like a bandit with that SEC invite

5) Louisville, starting in 2014.

6) Rutgers -- won the friggin' conference realignment lottery jackpot with the B1G invite.

7) Boise State and the MWC -- that's how I shall refer to this group of (now) stable schools

8) The New Big East -- streamlined its roster with a renewed focus on hoops and a new TV partner.

Losers:

1) UConn -- they belong with the new Big East

2) ACC -- depending on one's expectations, not getting ND to commit to full-time football could be considered a "loss" (although I don't feel that way) -- I'm sure stever will be along shortly to put me in my place and all...

3) Any of the following: AAC, SBC, C-USA -- if the expectations were that of playing "big time" college football, then this is a loss.

The ACC is not a winner in this. They lost one of their founding members, which was a cornerstone. And 2 more members are openly flirting with the B12.

Moreover, the MWC is not a winner in this either. They lost Utah, TCU and BYU. Those 3 programs were the MWC. Boise State just got there from the WAC.

The ACC traded Maryland for Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Louisville, and a beneficial agreement with Notre Dame. how are they not a winner?

Maryland is a cornerstone?

No one ever openly flirted with the Big 12. One board member ran his mouth at FSU and then the bloggers and fans took over. They were never going to the Big 12 or anywhere else.

Funny how these schools were belittled when part of the "Big Least", but now that they are going to ACC are so valuable.

Not sure who was belittling what schools. But you could say the same thing about the ACC. How many fans have dogged that conference while begging for their teams to join the Big Ten, SEC, or Big 12?

(04-22-2013 09:21 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Butler is also a big winner. They could have been the next San Francisco Dons or Indiana State Sycamores. But they've turned their run into a spot in a top conference, and now they have a chance to keep the best coach in the country for his whole career.

I say VCU is a big winner also. Moves from the CAA to the A10. Loyola also moves from a 1 bid Horizon league to a multiple bid MVC, definitely winners.

(04-22-2013 12:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 11:06 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  3) MAC -- no losses.

[Rodney Dangerfield voice]: "What does Temple have to do to get any respect around here?!"

The Owls are a loss no doubt, but the conference is comforted by the $5,000,000 it received for Temple leaving a year early. NIU gaining the conference's first BCS bowl bid later in the year helped even more.

(04-22-2013 01:59 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:03 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  Winners:
1) TCU - nobody really wanted them and they're a tiny school with a small local fanbase

Not sure how you define "nobody really wanted them", but we went from a league where we we popular enough to be a geographic outlier in a Western league, invited to a league where we would have been a geographic outlier in an Eastern league, finally ending up in one of the top 4 or 5 conferences. Hard to argue that realignment-wise we are promiscuous, but it's hard to be both unpopular and promiscuous.

Hard to argue with the Frogs playing the game of musical chairs very well.
TCU is the realignment wench! Good when she's around but you know she won't be around for long because she's always looking for the next big meal ticket.

(04-22-2013 10:04 PM)Poliicious Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:59 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:03 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  Winners:
1) TCU - nobody really wanted them and they're a tiny school with a small local fanbase

Not sure how you define "nobody really wanted them", but we went from a league where we we popular enough to be a geographic outlier in a Western league, invited to a league where we would have been a geographic outlier in an Eastern league, finally ending up in one of the top 4 or 5 conferences. Hard to argue that realignment-wise we are promiscuous, but it's hard to be both unpopular and promiscuous.

Hard to argue with the Frogs playing the game of musical chairs very well.
TCU is the realignment wench! Good when she's around but you know she won't be around for long because she's always looking for the next big meal ticket.

Pretty sure TCU found her sugar daddy...she played it well. TCU is done doing conferences for $$$ and exposure.

(04-22-2013 02:08 PM)mlb Wrote:  In the grand scheme of things I think this is the beginning of the end of college sports, specifically college football, as we know it. My school was left out, so admittedly, I'm pissed. That being said, however, is that I used to catch games every night of the week. Now I'm to the point of saying f' it. Hardly watched any games outside of UC last year. Didn't watch the bowls. Didn't care to watch Game Day or any other shows. I just didn't care... went to the UC games and watched the away games on TV, that was it. I think that a lot of fans are hitting that point... sick of this crap.

What would be sweet revenge for UConn, Cincy & USF is a BCS bowl win in 13 and an NCAA Men's Tourney National Championship in 14.

(04-22-2013 04:37 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I only didn't add USF because they didn't lose as much as the other three. Temple lost their in part due to their own doing. UConn was partially a power conference member (BB but not FB), and later upgraded its football program with promises of being in a BCS conference, that went away. Cincy I mentioned because of all of the teams left out, they and Boise both actually did it on the field, and were left out. I only didn't mention Boise since they were never really "in" a BCS conference. It's not that USF didn't lose anything, it's just that comparatively speaking, I put them a notch behind UC and UConn, and I had to list Temple since they were the first loser in realignment, and have now lost twice.

And Temple paid the MAC $5M to leave a year early.

(04-22-2013 01:59 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:03 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  Winners:
1) TCU - nobody really wanted them and they're a tiny school with a small local fanbase

Not sure how you define "nobody really wanted them", but we went from a league where we we popular enough to be a geographic outlier in a Western league, invited to a league where we would have been a geographic outlier in an Eastern league, finally ending up in one of the top 4 or 5 conferences. Hard to argue that realignment-wise we are promiscuous, but it's hard to be both unpopular and promiscuous.

Popular or necessary? TCU was good enough to get an invite to the strongest non AQ league and weakest AQ league, then got into the Big 12 (which at the time was as stable as a slippery rock) because they needed another Texas school for their TV contract and TCU could get out of the then Big East with no strings attached. Had Texas A&M stayed and someone else left or if you had joined the Big East a year earlier you guys would be in the AAC right now. It was literally the perfect storm that landed you guys where you are today.

No "power" conference in summer 2011 wanted TCU, and it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine the Big 12 regrets taking you guys instead of someone else today.

(04-22-2013 09:08 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 09:04 PM)JMUDuke25 Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 11:46 AM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 11:06 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Winners:

1) Notre Dame -- as mentioned above, they get an upgraded bakery, get a newly made cake and still get to eat it.

2) ACC -- yes, Notre Dame gets to eat its own cake, but they're willing to share 5 of the slices per season, something the old Big East could never achieve.

3) MAC -- no losses.

4) Missouri -- made out like a bandit with that SEC invite

5) Louisville, starting in 2014.

6) Rutgers -- won the friggin' conference realignment lottery jackpot with the B1G invite.

7) Boise State and the MWC -- that's how I shall refer to this group of (now) stable schools

8) The New Big East -- streamlined its roster with a renewed focus on hoops and a new TV partner.

Losers:

1) UConn -- they belong with the new Big East

2) ACC -- depending on one's expectations, not getting ND to commit to full-time football could be considered a "loss" (although I don't feel that way) -- I'm sure stever will be along shortly to put me in my place and all...

3) Any of the following: AAC, SBC, C-USA -- if the expectations were that of playing "big time" college football, then this is a loss.

The ACC is not a winner in this. They lost one of their founding members, which was a cornerstone. And 2 more members are openly flirting with the B12.

Moreover, the MWC is not a winner in this either. They lost Utah, TCU and BYU. Those 3 programs were the MWC. Boise State just got there from the WAC.

The ACC traded Maryland for Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Louisville, and a beneficial agreement with Notre Dame. how are they not a winner?

Maryland is a cornerstone?

No one ever openly flirted with the Big 12. One board member ran his mouth at FSU and then the bloggers and fans took over. They were never going to the Big 12 or anywhere else.

Funny how these schools were belittled when part of the "Big Least", but now that they are going to ACC are so valuable.

Yep for a conference that was lightly regarded by many, almost every other BCS conference wanted it's teams.

(04-22-2013 02:02 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:03 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  Winners:
1) TCU - nobody really wanted them and they're a tiny school with a small local fanbase
2) Utah - similar to TCU, but they're a much bigger school
3) Rutgers - horrible athletics but happens to be located in NYC, good academics
4) Notre Dame - remains independent but gets better bowls
5) Louisville - improving academically but not there just yet, great athletics and lots of history with several ACC schools

Losers:
1) UConn - great academics and basketball and great location
2) UConn - ditto
3) West Virginia - stuck in a conference with 1000 miles to travel every road game, no eastern partners for the foreseeable future
4) Cincinnati - decent academics and athletics, small fanbase that doesn't show up

I'm sorry but Rutgers has been good in football. Yes UofL has had higher highs but they also had lower lows in the big east 2.0

Yes, after 100 years of being arguably the worst football team at any level in North America you guys had a decent run from 2006 to 2012. That doesn't make you "good" in football by anyone's standards, and your basketball program is somehow even worse.

Our worst season in the "Big East 2.0" was 4-8 in 2009. Your worst season was 4-8 in 2010. I'd say our lows were about even, and your lows before that were much worse.

(04-22-2013 12:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 11:06 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  3) MAC -- no losses.

[Rodney Dangerfield voice]: "What does Temple have to do to get any respect around here?!"

win

(04-21-2013 08:34 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(04-21-2013 08:23 PM)bluesox Wrote:  Biggest winners: utah, tcu and rutgers
Biggest losers: uconn, cincy and usf

Plus USM.

They were the biggest loser by a country mile.

Rutgers is easily the biggest winner in all of this.

...the Big Ten, because they got two bums that will drag down their SOS.

(04-22-2013 04:40 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 04:03 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 03:54 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 12:53 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 12:23 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Methinks an ACC in which all 15 members have reportedly agreed to sign a GOR says the ACC is a winner. We will miss Maryland in much the same way the SEC misses GT.

And... Louisville is an upgrade.

Once again, it's not about whether a replacement is suitable or might even be an upgrade on-the-field/court. The ACC would have never, ever, ever, ever, ever *chosen* to trade Maryland for Louisville, just as the Big 12 would have never, ever, ever, ever, ever *chosen* to trade, say, Colorado for West Virginia or TCU regardless of how terrible CU has been lately in terms of competitiveness. Those conferences lost schools that no league in its right mind would ever want to lose. The fact that there were solid replacements for them was fortuitous, but it wasn't by choice, so yes, they lost *something* (population base, academic prestige, TV markets, etc.). The Big Ten, SEC and Pac-12 are the only ones to have outright gains without losing any assets.

You added Rutgers for TV sets only...not a real win in my book but if you're happy...glad for you.

Uh so Rutgers didn't win? Also they fit in the B1G like a glove. Large state university in a highly populated state that houses a ton of B1G alumni? C'mon how do you NOT think that's a win for both sides? Would the Cuse have been a better choice?

BTW, I never said Rutgers didn't win...they won the friggin expansion lottery...I was talking about the B1G in general. All they won was cable boxes with Rutgers...oh and a host stadium for their NE transplant fans.

Don't bet on that, Mark. The B1G could have awakened a sleeping giant. Now that Rutgers is in the B1G, it's going to make their program a lot more attractive to talented local recruits, which they have in plenty. They could stay close to home, play on national TV every week, facing programs like Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan State, Michigan, etc....

The days of anyone looking down on Rutgers could be coming to an end. With membership in the B1G, and the proximity to NYC, Rutgers will probably be pretty attractive to recruits who want to play on the big stage. All they need is the right leadership, coaches, AD, etc....

(04-22-2013 06:55 PM)justinslot Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 04:58 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  Everyone not in a conference named ACC, B1G, Big XII, Pac-12 or SEC. The rest are all in the same boat and there isn't a REAL difference in any of them.

Eh, there are real differences between them, just like there are real differences between the Cartel 5 leagues.

If you want to believe that go ahead. But if you ask college football coaches, athletic administrators, TV executives who write the checks, former coaches and former administrators they will tell you that there isn't any real difference. After all why do you think that the AAC's TV deal is 1.8mil while the CUSA deal for the 12 team conference was 1.2 mil when negotiated a couple of years ago? That, when compared to the money spent on the Power 5, is not a substantial difference. Why? Because they don't believe that there is a substantial difference among the non Power 5 teams to warrant the money. The coaches and administrators, going forward, are not going to sign home and home's with any of the Gang of 5. Oh, you might get a 1 (home) for 2 or 3 at the Power 5 place on occasion, but that's the best you will do. Because they don't have to give you anything better. They can always find a SBC or MAC or FCS team that will give them a 1 and done money game.

(04-22-2013 10:27 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:59 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:03 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  Winners:
1) TCU - nobody really wanted them and they're a tiny school with a small local fanbase

Not sure how you define "nobody really wanted them", but we went from a league where we we popular enough to be a geographic outlier in a Western league, invited to a league where we would have been a geographic outlier in an Eastern league, finally ending up in one of the top 4 or 5 conferences. Hard to argue that realignment-wise we are promiscuous, but it's hard to be both unpopular and promiscuous.

Popular or necessary? TCU was good enough to get an invite to the strongest non AQ league and weakest AQ league, then got into the Big 12 (which at the time was as stable as a slippery rock) because they needed another Texas school for their TV contract and TCU could get out of the then Big East with no strings attached. Had Texas A&M stayed and someone else left or if you had joined the Big East a year earlier you guys would be in the AAC right now. It was literally the perfect storm that landed you guys where you are today.

No "power" conference in summer 2011 wanted TCU, and it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine the Big 12 regrets taking you guys instead of someone else today.

With all due respect, you are spinning your opinion as fact. I'm not going to pretend to *know* what conferences think now or in the past, other than to say the proof is in the pudding. Over the past 8 years we've been invited by three conferences from all over the country. To say we are "unwanted" is just silly.

(04-23-2013 12:08 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 06:55 PM)justinslot Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 04:58 PM)PaulDel2 Wrote:  Everyone not in a conference named ACC, B1G, Big XII, Pac-12 or SEC. The rest are all in the same boat and there isn't a REAL difference in any of them.

Eh, there are real differences between them, just like there are real differences between the Cartel 5 leagues.

If you want to believe that go ahead. But if you ask college football coaches, athletic administrators, TV executives who write the checks, former coaches and former administrators they will tell you that there isn't any real difference. After all why do you think that the AAC's TV deal is 1.8mil while the CUSA deal for the 12 team conference was 1.2 mil when negotiated a couple of years ago? That, when compared to the money spent on the Power 5, is not a substantial difference. Why? Because they don't believe that there is a substantial difference among the non Power 5 teams to warrant the money. The coaches and administrators, going forward, are not going to sign home and home's with any of the Gang of 5. Oh, you might get a 1 (home) for 2 or 3 at the Power 5 place on occasion, but that's the best you will do. Because they don't have to give you anything better. They can always find a SBC or MAC or FCS team that will give them a 1 and done money game.

Why is it any different now than it was? They never had to do 1 and 1s. What am I missing?

I think it's absolutely comical to have anyone say that the MWC was a winner in all of this. They LOST BYU, Utah, and TCU- their 3 best football programs historically. Gained Boise and a bunch of mediocrity. At BEST it's a net zero.

I think for losers- you have to look at CUSA. They are basically now an entry level FBS conference- whereas before, they had teams fighting for BCS spots. I know what all the AAC lost, however, they still will be in the mix every season for a BCS spot. They will have a top 7 basketball league. CUSA now is #8-10 in football and much weaker in basketball. There is much less seperation from them and the Sun Belt.

I think also in the end ESPN could wind up a loser. If they lose the Big Ten in a few years, they would have all of the best games for only 1 of the 5 power conferences, the ACC(the lowest of the 5). CBS with SEC, Fox with Big Ten, Pac 12, and Big 12(sharing Pac 12 and Big 12). They would have lost the C7 schools and Big ten Basketball.

(04-22-2013 10:27 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:59 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:03 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  Winners:
1) TCU - nobody really wanted them and they're a tiny school with a small local fanbase

Not sure how you define "nobody really wanted them", but we went from a league where we we popular enough to be a geographic outlier in a Western league, invited to a league where we would have been a geographic outlier in an Eastern league, finally ending up in one of the top 4 or 5 conferences. Hard to argue that realignment-wise we are promiscuous, but it's hard to be both unpopular and promiscuous.

Popular or necessary? TCU was good enough to get an invite to the strongest non AQ league and weakest AQ league, then got into the Big 12 (which at the time was as stable as a slippery rock) because they needed another Texas school for their TV contract and TCU could get out of the then Big East with no strings attached. Had Texas A&M stayed and someone else left or if you had joined the Big East a year earlier you guys would be in the AAC right now. It was literally the perfect storm that landed you guys where you are today.

No "power" conference in summer 2011 wanted TCU, and it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine the Big 12 regrets taking you guys instead of someone else today.

The same Big XII you guys BEGGED to be in an was turned away, even when your local senator lobbied on your behalf. You want to poo poo all over TCU let's just be honest here. They needed another school, NOT another Texas school and they were picked over the cards. You guys were lucky to beat out UConn. You can thank BC and FSU for that. You should learn to be more humble in life.

(04-22-2013 10:33 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 02:02 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:03 PM)gocards#1 Wrote:  Winners:
1) TCU - nobody really wanted them and they're a tiny school with a small local fanbase
2) Utah - similar to TCU, but they're a much bigger school
3) Rutgers - horrible athletics but happens to be located in NYC, good academics
4) Notre Dame - remains independent but gets better bowls
5) Louisville - improving academically but not there just yet, great athletics and lots of history with several ACC schools

Losers:
1) UConn - great academics and basketball and great location
2) UConn - ditto
3) West Virginia - stuck in a conference with 1000 miles to travel every road game, no eastern partners for the foreseeable future
4) Cincinnati - decent academics and athletics, small fanbase that doesn't show up

I'm sorry but Rutgers has been good in football. Yes UofL has had higher highs but they also had lower lows in the big east 2.0

Yes, after 100 years of being arguably the worst football team at any level in North America you guys had a decent run from 2006 to 2012. That doesn't make you "good" in football by anyone's standards, and your basketball program is somehow even worse.

Our worst season in the "Big East 2.0" was 4-8 in 2009. Your worst season was 4-8 in 2010. I'd say our lows were about even, and your lows before that were much worse.

Kragthorpe. 'Nuff said.