What move do you think was the most pointless? Who will end up looking like a bust?

West Virginia and Rutgers.

Colorado by a long shot.

Kansas City to the WAC from the Summit after Denver had just moved the opposite direction

From a football aspect, both additions to the Pac 12.

Idaho & NMSU

I disagree with Colorado and Utah. They did exactly what they were supposed to do. Get the PAC a championship game and get the PAC into markets where they had little to no penetration. They weren't intended to drastically increase the football quality of the conference, though they did get a historically strong Colorado program. To that extent they were very valuable additions.

My reasoning for picking Rutgers and West Virginia is pretty simple.

First Rutgers: the B1G already had a presence in NY with Penn State and Michigan. They also already had a championship game after adding one of college football's top programs in Nebraska. I don't think there's much value in Rutgers to the B1G, but I could definitely be proven wrong, they haven't even set foot in the B1G.

Now West Virginia: the Big XII lost a plethora of strong schools in Nebraska, TAMU, Mizzou, and Colorado. WVU alone just can't match the value lost. This is evident as the Big XII has stuck it out at 10 members to keep per team payout comparable to the other power five conferences.

(07-08-2013 10:12 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  What move do you think was the most pointless? Who will end up looking like a bust?

Maryland to the Big10 wast the most pointless. Nebraska will end up looking like a bust in 10 years. Nebraska cut itself off of its key recruiting ground of Missouri and opened the door for Arkansas,Ole Miss and Kentucky to gain traction in the state.

Rutgers, Colorado, Mizzou. Probably Pitt. And Miami has never paid off for the ACC.

1 - Tulane
2 - Temple
3 - Colorado
4 - SMU
5 - FIU/FAU (both mirages, I'm amazed how they get attention when even U of Miami struggles with attendance and in general.)
6 - UMass (because of football-only, MAC should have added them like C-USA added Charlotte but instead we get their worst sport and nothing else. 10,000 fans and a cruddy stadium (17,000) even after half-committed improvements)
7 - Idaho
8 - WVU ( this wont work long)
9 - Georgia Southern (I don't care how many FCS Titles they have, until they change that gimmick offense they will get crushed. App State will do good however.)

(07-08-2013 10:48 PM)TRest3 Wrote:  Rutgers, Colorado, Mizzou. Probably Pitt. And Miami has never paid off for the ACC.

The ACC immediately skyrocketed to the conference with the largest TV revenue after the additions of BC, VT, and most importantly Miami.

Remember at the time the second Miami dynasty was surging. From 2000 to 2003 they had 4 BCS appearances, 3 BCS victories, 2 championship appearances, and 1 national title. Even now, a decade later, Miami is still a very strong brand. Just look at the way they still recruit.

(07-08-2013 10:47 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  I disagree with Colorado and Utah. They did exactly what they were supposed to do. Get the PAC a championship game and get the PAC into markets where they had little to no penetration. They weren't intended to drastically increase the football quality of the conference, though they did get a historically strong Colorado program. To that extent they were very valuable additions.

My reasoning for picking Rutgers and West Virginia is pretty simple.

First Rutgers: the B1G already had a presence in NY with Penn State and Michigan. They also already had a championship game after adding one of college football's top programs in Nebraska. I don't think there's much value in Rutgers to the B1G, but I could definitely be proven wrong, they haven't even set foot in the B1G.

Now West Virginia: the Big XII lost a plethora of strong schools in Nebraska, TAMU, Mizzou, and Colorado. WVU alone just can't match the value lost. This is evident as the Big XII has stuck it out at 10 members to keep per team payout comparable to the other power five conferences.

It really sucks how cable carriers have taken over all aspects of college sports. Colorado sucks but they Pac picked them to expand their TV deal in Denver. That's one example out of many.

In order of worst to least worst for football production for P5:
1. Colorado
2. Maryland
3. Utah
4. Miami (not that they are bad, but that they didn't deliver)
5. Nebraska (see Miami)

In order of worst to least worst for markets or market development for P5:
1. T.C.U. (good football addition but truly delivered nothing in the way of a new market).
2. Virginia Tech (great program, very good school, no new market value)
3. Miami (already had Florida State & long haul travel for any conference and National Brand has diminished).
4. West Virginia (a market bonanza when added to Louisville and/or Cincinnati in that it opens a whole new region for a conference, but a long trip to an outlier when you don't develop the region)
5. Colorado (dynamic market but not delivered by Colorado)

Late 00's- present.

Just going to throw out the good and the bad choices based purely on my gut reaction when announced:

Bad: Colorado, Utah (could've been replaced by BYU), Maryland, Pitt.

Good: Louisville, Memphis, UCF, 'Cuse, TCU, WVU, Tulsa, A&M, ODU, MTSU

Okay: Pretty much everyone else...can't be partial on the rest of our own conference members... can't be partial about ECU even though I honestly feel like we would be a solid addition to any of the AAC, ACC,SEC,B12 but not the MW, B1G or PAC.

(07-08-2013 10:57 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 10:48 PM)TRest3 Wrote:  Rutgers, Colorado, Mizzou. Probably Pitt. And Miami has never paid off for the ACC.

The ACC immediately skyrocketed to the conference with the largest TV revenue after the additions of BC, VT, and most importantly Miami.

Remember at the time the second Miami dynasty was surging. From 2000 to 2003 they had 4 BCS appearances, 3 BCS victories, 2 championship appearances, and 1 national title. Even now, a decade later, Miami is still a very strong brand. Just look at the way they still recruit.

shame the ACC has pissed it all away at least on the football side

adding Syracuse and Pitt doesn't help the conference catch up to the big boys in the SEC, Big 12, the Pac-12 or even the Big 10

Notre Dame comes close but since they're doing to the ACC what they did to the Big East, they won't help in the long run

the ACC will be lucky to have a school make a 4 team playoff and would be lucky to have one school make an 8 team playoff

maybe they should just stick to basketball and lacrosse

FBS Only

Worst add(s) by conference

Sun Belt - Ga State, NMSU, and Idaho. Idaho doesn't have a proper place to play. NMSU hasn't been successful in years (and will be rejoining a Sun Belt that is a LOT more difficult than the conference they were in 10 years ago). Georgia State may prove me wrong, but they don't appear to be ready. In the Belt's defense, Idaho and NMSU were pretty much forced adds.
CUSA - F_U, Charlotte, and UTSA. Left Arky State and ULL to take a move up, a non-existent program, and two programs with very low fan support who will have to rebuild.
MAC - UMass. There was no need for the MAC to do anything. UMass isn't likely to move football to the MAC, they don't have a place to play, and they'll leave the second they are in a position to help the MAC out.
ACC - No bad adds, but no good ones either. A lot of "Meh" and blocking the Big East.
American - Tulane? Really? Also, Memphis? You passed over Southern Miss to take two programs that get repeatedly beat down by Sun Belt schools. At least Memphis has good basketball. Tulane doesn't have much of a fan base.
Big XII - Neither add was bad. But they lost a LOT. And now has the SEC in their footprint.
SEC - No bad adds. Texas A&M was, by far, the best add by any conference. Missouri was a good add, but not a blockbuster.
B1G - Rutgers and Maryland. Two programs that aren't big league in football (and Rutgers isn't in mens' basketball either). Neither generate large amounts of local fan support for football. Nebraska was a huge add though.
Pac 12 - Neither add was awful, but Colorado isn't going to help for a long time. Due to geography, I guess those two were the best available programs.
MWC - No bad adds.
Indy - BYU is now virtually alone as an indy. Even Notre Dame saw the writing on the wall and had to align with someone in order to keep bowl access.

MA

(07-08-2013 10:47 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(07-08-2013 10:12 PM)uakronkid Wrote:  What move do you think was the most pointless? Who will end up looking like a bust?

Maryland to the Big10 wast the most pointless. Nebraska will end up looking like a bust in 10 years. Nebraska cut itself off of its key recruiting ground of Missouri and opened the door for Arkansas,Ole Miss and Kentucky to gain traction in the state.

I have never really understood the whole "recruiting ground" theory. Back in the 2000's Kent's main recruiting came from MD, PA, NJ and Florida. The MAC is in none of those states. With national coverage games I don't think there is much need to have a school in conference to have a foothold on a state. It's just up to the coach to sell his school to the recruits.

(07-08-2013 10:47 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  My reasoning for picking Rutgers and West Virginia is pretty simple.

First Rutgers: the B1G already had a presence in NY with Penn State and Michigan. They also already had a championship game after adding one of college football's top programs in Nebraska. I don't think there's much value in Rutgers to the B1G, but I could definitely be proven wrong, they haven't even set foot in the B1G.

Now West Virginia: the Big XII lost a plethora of strong schools in Nebraska, TAMU, Mizzou, and Colorado. WVU alone just can't match the value lost. This is evident as the Big XII has stuck it out at 10 members to keep per team payout comparable to the other power five conferences.

Agree on both counts. Well stated.

(07-08-2013 10:47 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  I disagree with Colorado and Utah. They did exactly what they were supposed to do. Get the PAC a championship game and get the PAC into markets where they had little to no penetration. They weren't intended to drastically increase the football quality of the conference, though they did get a historically strong Colorado program. To that extent they were very valuable additions.

I agree. It's a mistake to look only at the last few years in Boulder and the dumpster fire set by Dan Hawkins. Before that, their track record in football was excellent. If they had joined the Pac in 1994 -- four years after their football NC, when the Pac first invited them -- everyone would have said at the time that it was a huge football boost for the Pac. The ingredients are still there. The fans there are pro-style fans, fair-weather fans like in LA , the attendance is still solid and the huge support will come back when the Buffs win again.

You can look at Utah as a better add if your view is based solely on late-2000s football success, but in terms of population, alumni support, money, and TV market, CU is a better add in the long term unless UU pours tons more money into their program. In terms of where the overall athletic department is, UU needs a lot of investment to catch up with the other three mountain schools, let alone the overall athletic investment of the four California schools and UW.

(07-08-2013 10:51 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  1 - Tulane
2 - Temple
3 - Colorado
4 - SMU
5 - FIU/FAU (both mirages, I'm amazed how they get attention when even U of Miami struggles with attendance and in general.)
6 - UMass (because of football-only, MAC should have added them like C-USA added Charlotte but instead we get their worst sport and nothing else. 10,000 fans and a cruddy stadium (17,000) even after half-committed improvements)
7 - Idaho
8 - WVU ( this wont work long)
9 - Georgia Southern (I don't care how many FCS Titles they have, until they change that gimmick offense they will get crushed. App State will do good however.)

I strongly disagree about Tulane. Tulane is an excellent school in the single most talent-rich area of the country, and in a major city. Their program has been weak because it was annihilated in 2005 by Hurricane Katrina, but they are in the process of building a brand new stadium. It is only a matter of time before Tulane starts winning, and when they win, New Orleans will notice.

Also, if nothing else, they are GREAT for recruiting, and I'm sure they aren't bad for expanding the conference's bowl presence. 'Nola is a great city for bowls (see Sugar Bowl) and Tulane really isn't far from Florida, or cities like Memphis and Houston.