(10-01-2014 12:45 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 06:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 05:53 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:Of course you "win" when you jump conferences. Unless your analysts are completely incompetent, you don't jump unless you know you're going to end up with more money.

Sure, going G5->P5. But going B12->P12 -- no, not necessarily. Colorado jumped because they figured B12 was going to sink -- but it kept afloat.

Marshall going from the MAC->CUSA seemed like a smart move then, but better CUSA teams left to the Big Easy/AAC. For most of Marshall's tenure in CUSA, they haven't done well and have been a lesser known team -- which was "OK" (given a little more money in CUSA) -- until CUSA turned into an improved Sun Belt conference (more or less).

This is why CU jumped:
But DiStefano said he sees a revenue impact of the conference change in other ways, especially in private donations, which came in at about $22 million last year after averaging closer to $10 million over the past several years.

"I think it's the footprint. When you look at Colorado, the footprint [of alumni] in the Pac-12 is about two-and-a-half to three times larger than in the Big 12," he said. Colorado's move to a more West Coast-oriented conference put it better in line with where its alumni live. DiStefano referenced the 1,500 people who showed up in Palo Alto, Calif., the first year Colorado played Stanford there.

"It was by far the largest pregame we've ever had for an away game," he said. "In the Big 12, the average for the pregame was 300 to 400 individuals."

Wow. If it means that much money per year in increased donations to CU, then they should have moved the first time they were invited to join the Pac (in 1994).

I think Colorado's economy has gradually become more tied to the west coast than the Great Plains and Texas. I think in the 70s it was more tied to the east and south. In the 70s, they talked about how much they hated Texans for coming in and buying up land. Now they hate Californians for coming in and driving up prices. And someone from Kansas said they now hate Coloradans for coming into Kansas and driving up the cost of their farm land.

(10-01-2014 12:45 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 06:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 05:53 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:Of course you "win" when you jump conferences. Unless your analysts are completely incompetent, you don't jump unless you know you're going to end up with more money.

Sure, going G5->P5. But going B12->P12 -- no, not necessarily. Colorado jumped because they figured B12 was going to sink -- but it kept afloat.

Marshall going from the MAC->CUSA seemed like a smart move then, but better CUSA teams left to the Big Easy/AAC. For most of Marshall's tenure in CUSA, they haven't done well and have been a lesser known team -- which was "OK" (given a little more money in CUSA) -- until CUSA turned into an improved Sun Belt conference (more or less).

This is why CU jumped:
But DiStefano said he sees a revenue impact of the conference change in other ways, especially in private donations, which came in at about $22 million last year after averaging closer to $10 million over the past several years.

"I think it's the footprint. When you look at Colorado, the footprint [of alumni] in the Pac-12 is about two-and-a-half to three times larger than in the Big 12," he said. Colorado's move to a more West Coast-oriented conference put it better in line with where its alumni live. DiStefano referenced the 1,500 people who showed up in Palo Alto, Calif., the first year Colorado played Stanford there.

"It was by far the largest pregame we've ever had for an away game," he said. "In the Big 12, the average for the pregame was 300 to 400 individuals."

Wow. If it means that much money per year in increased donations to CU, then they should have moved the first time they were invited to join the Pac (in 1994).

Within a couple of years of rejecting the PAC invitation, at least two members of the Board of Regents who voted to reject were quoted as regretting their votes. CU and the PAC have talked ever since. PAC commissioner Tom Hansen was the obstruction to expansion.

(09-30-2014 06:07 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 05:34 PM)brista21 Wrote:  It isn't 100 years its basically the 25 season period from 1980 to 2004 where football was putrid. Prior to mid-70s we played mostly FCS schools, but by the early 80s we had all but phased out the FCS schools.

Prior to the mid-70s, Rutgers' primary rivals in football were Princeton, Lafayette, Lehigh, Columbia and NYU (before it dropped football). Since then, only the 1978 and 2006 teams have been outstanding.

Sure, but that's not the point I was making. The main point is we weren't putrid prior to the early 80s, we just were playing a different type of schedule and doing well against it. After 2004, we also haven't been putrid. We have played competitive football for 11 seasons and counting now with an outstanding year in 2006 and an outstanding defensive year in 2012.

(10-01-2014 09:35 AM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 05:34 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 04:35 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 04:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's crazy and yet interesting to realize that the most successful team to make the jump is unquestionably Mizzou. Mizzou's football team has actually won something. That's quite impressive for one of the more overlooked schools throughout this realignment process.

While Mizzou may have had the most success immediately, I think the biggest winner has to be Rutgers. It was inconceivable five years ago that they might be in the Big Ten one day. They had 100 years of putrid football and basketball and are now in what is probably the most historic conference (read historic, not best athletically) able to play host to the likes of Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State and Wisconsin.

It isn't 100 years its basically the 25 season period from 1980 to 2004 where football was putrid. Prior to mid-70s we played mostly FCS schools, but by the early 80s we had all but phased out the FCS schools.

Basketball in the 70s and 80s ranged from competitive nearly every year to outstanding in 76. After '91 its been a slow descent into hell, with only a few competitive years here and there.

But keep propagating the myth that Rutgers has been bad at everything since our great grandparents were young.

A .514 win percentage and only nine bowl appearances in over 130 seasons isn't good. A state flagship in a populous state with no other FBS team to speak of is underperforming in my opinion.

A .514 win percentage is indication of Rutgers historical norm which is mediocre not putrid as you put it. I agree its underperformance considering its the only FBS school and the state flagship in a populous state that disproportionately puts out football talent, but the point is historically we are neither good nor bad. In the last decade we've become far more competitive with a .603 winning percentage since the 2004 season. (This includes 2014 year to date.)

Hooray for mediocrity, brista.

(09-30-2014 09:11 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Utah hasn't exactly been world beaters in the Pac 12, but the Utes haven't completely fallen flat on their faces either.

I actually think the Utes records since joining the PAC(stellar OOC record and mediocre to bad PAC record) have helped the perception of PAC football.

(10-01-2014 01:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-01-2014 12:45 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 06:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 05:53 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:Of course you "win" when you jump conferences. Unless your analysts are completely incompetent, you don't jump unless you know you're going to end up with more money.

Sure, going G5->P5. But going B12->P12 -- no, not necessarily. Colorado jumped because they figured B12 was going to sink -- but it kept afloat.

Marshall going from the MAC->CUSA seemed like a smart move then, but better CUSA teams left to the Big Easy/AAC. For most of Marshall's tenure in CUSA, they haven't done well and have been a lesser known team -- which was "OK" (given a little more money in CUSA) -- until CUSA turned into an improved Sun Belt conference (more or less).

This is why CU jumped:
But DiStefano said he sees a revenue impact of the conference change in other ways, especially in private donations, which came in at about $22 million last year after averaging closer to $10 million over the past several years.

"I think it's the footprint. When you look at Colorado, the footprint [of alumni] in the Pac-12 is about two-and-a-half to three times larger than in the Big 12," he said. Colorado's move to a more West Coast-oriented conference put it better in line with where its alumni live. DiStefano referenced the 1,500 people who showed up in Palo Alto, Calif., the first year Colorado played Stanford there.

"It was by far the largest pregame we've ever had for an away game," he said. "In the Big 12, the average for the pregame was 300 to 400 individuals."

Wow. If it means that much money per year in increased donations to CU, then they should have moved the first time they were invited to join the Pac (in 1994).

I think Colorado's economy has gradually become more tied to the west coast than the Great Plains and Texas. I think in the 70s it was more tied to the east and south. In the 70s, they talked about how much they hated Texans for coming in and buying up land. Now they hate Californians for coming in and driving up prices. And someone from Kansas said they now hate Coloradans for coming into Kansas and driving up the cost of their farm land.

To me, Colorado may be PAC material as far as the Denver area goes, but I doubt the rural areas are west coast thinkers.