I'll just leave this here.

Quote:On July 1, 134-year independent Navy will officially join the American and Charlotte, a two-year-old FCS startup, begins play in Conference USA. They are the last remaining FBS comers and goers currently on the books, marking an end to a half-decade of shuffling.

Actually there are two others; UAB football leaving & coming back to C-USA, and UMass leaving the MAC for independence.

I'd also lump South Florida into the losers category with Cincy and UConn and add the MAC to the winners list for making it through mostly unscathed (losing 2 football only members is nothing to worry about).

I'd go with texas being the biggest loser even if the paycheck is good. Disagree that byu and wvu are losers.

(06-11-2015 11:01 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

Quote:On July 1, 134-year independent Navy will officially join the American and Charlotte, a two-year-old FCS startup, begins play in Conference USA. They are the last remaining FBS comers and goers currently on the books, marking an end to a half-decade of shuffling.

Actually there are two others; UAB football leaving & coming back to C-USA, and UMass leaving the MAC for independence.

I'd also lump South Florida into the losers category with Cincy and UConn and add the MAC to the winners list for making it through mostly unscathed (losing 2 football only members is nothing to worry about).

I don't agree with his placement of WVU as a loser. Getting out of the AAC for a P5 means their worst possible ranking can go no lower than the bottom of the winners list.

It's hard to say with BYU....are they better off or worse?

Most of the others I'd agree with, although I think Nebraska is in trouble.....they're getting way more money, but how do they get back to the Tom Osbourne era dominance?? I just don't see it happening in the Big 10.....

I get having WVU as a loser just because they're on an island when they used to have some good regional opponents like Pittsburgh. The B12 paycheck leaves them in a better financial situation, and things could have been a lot worse for them, so it's probably more of a break even than a loss.

(06-11-2015 11:09 AM)krup Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 11:01 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

Quote:On July 1, 134-year independent Navy will officially join the American and Charlotte, a two-year-old FCS startup, begins play in Conference USA. They are the last remaining FBS comers and goers currently on the books, marking an end to a half-decade of shuffling.

Actually there are two others; UAB football leaving & coming back to C-USA, and UMass leaving the MAC for independence.

I'd also lump South Florida into the losers category with Cincy and UConn and add the MAC to the winners list for making it through mostly unscathed (losing 2 football only members is nothing to worry about).

I don't agree with his placement of WVU as a loser. Getting out of the AAC for a P5 means their worst possible ranking can go no lower than the bottom of the winners list.

I didn't read the article, so take this for whatever you want, but I think that she probably means WVU in the BIG EAST (post BC defection, but Pre-SU/Pitt defection) v WVU in the Big XII.

Not sure Boise deserves to be on there. They weren't a winner---in that they are not MUCH better off than before 2011. But they are not a realignment loser either---in that they are not MUCH worse off than in 2011. I'd say, they are actually slightly better off for 2 reasons. They have about the same conference, but it now takes less to be a "BCS buster" in the new era. For instance, last years Boise team would not have made a BCS bowl in 2011---but in 2014, it made the Fiesta Bowl. Additionally, the special deal the MW handed them gives them better exposure and more money. Hard to see how that lands them in the loser category.

Ditto WVU. Any team that made it out of the collapsing soon to be G5 Big East/AAC to a power conference (regardless of location) is a realignment winner.

(06-11-2015 11:09 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  It's hard to say with BYU....are they better off or worse?

Most of the others I'd agree with, although I think Nebraska is in trouble.....they're getting way more money, but how do they get back to the Tom Osbourne era dominance?? I just don't see it happening in the Big 10.....

By running up the score like he used to do

(06-11-2015 11:34 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Not sure Boise deserves to be on there. They weren't a winner---in that they are not MUCH better off than before 2011. But they are not a realignment loser either---in that they are not MUCH worse off than in 2011. I'd say, they are actually slightly better off for 2 reasons. They have about the same conference, but it now takes less to be a "BCS buster" in the new era. For instance, last years Boise team would not have made a BCS bowl in 2011---but in 2014, it made the Fiesta Bowl. Additionally, the special deal the MW handed them gives them better exposure and more money. Hard to see how that lands them in the loser category.

Ditto WVU. Any team that made it out of the collapsing soon to be G5 Big East/AAC to a power conference (regardless of location) is a realignment winner.

Boise State I would contend is better off than two years ago.

No longer do they have to hit the top 12 or top 16, they just have to win the MWC and garner more respect doing so than the champions of the AAC, MAC, Sun Belt, and CUSA.

They get a net increase in revenue of about a million dollars from the CFP.

No they didn't win but they are playing a game where they aren't teeing off from the same place as other schools, their geography, their youth as a bachelor's granting university, their youth as an FBS program, the local population, they scored a stroke or two under par and can walk off the course happy.

I can see WVU being looked at as a realignment loser. If you look at where they were in 2010 and where they are now- while yes they aren't as bad as UConn, Cincy, and USF are- of the 65 BCS schools back then- how many of those other 62 are worse off now more than WVU is?

(06-11-2015 11:09 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  It's hard to say with BYU....are they better off or worse?

Most of the others I'd agree with, although I think Nebraska is in trouble.....they're getting way more money, but how do they get back to the Tom Osbourne era dominance?? I just don't see it happening in the Big 10.....

Depends on perspective - re BYU.

Exposure, fan access, TV deal, and schedules = easily a big WIN. And, I mean, it's no comparison.

Access to bowls = loser

Mandel focuses on the access to the NY6 bowls as the determining factor. From that perspective, he's right.

However, I have to question whether contractually getting into an NY6 Bowl game is better than the increased exposure, access, and money and better schedules and being accepted by the SEC, ACC, and national media as a P5 program despite three straight mediocre seasons.

Not sure why Mandel didn't include USF with Cincy and UConn as a loser.

(06-11-2015 12:03 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Not sure why Mandel didn't include USF with Cincy and UConn as a loser.

Somewhere between "he forgot about USF" and "Unlike UC and UConn, USF was already performing at a sub-BCS-AQ level" and so deserved their demotion.

'Course, Deserve Ain't Got Nothin' To Do With It.

Oh, what the heck, let's nitpick this article.

Texas. The negatives he identified about the Horns -- coaching and AD turnover, on-field struggles by their own standards -- have nothing to do with realignment.

Nebraska. "Yes, the Huskers' new home is richer and more stable, but..." But what? He says "richer and more stable" as if it's a bad thing.

Texas A&M. Didn't seem like a natural fit in the SEC? Really? People have been saying for at least 25 years that A&M would be a good fit in the SEC.

BYU. "Largely backfired?" No. There are positives to BYU's move, from BYU's perspective, that outweigh the only negative (non-eligibility for the G5's access-bowl slot).

West Virginia. A loser? No. Being in the Big 12 instead of the AAC (their only alternative) is not a loss.

Boise State. He says, "To be fair, the Broncos are in a better spot than they were in the now-defunct WAC." That's what he should have stuck with. But then he blows it by arguing Boise is a loser just because they haven't hit the P5 lottery, which is like saying that every person who doesn't win the Powerball is a loser in life.

Idaho and NMSU. These teams shouldn't be at the bottom of the list. They are by far the biggest losers. Their ability to keep playing FBS football is hanging by a weak thread and will probably continue to do so for as long as they stay in FBS. Their coaches and ADs would crawl across broken glass just to be "stuck" in a G5 conference like the other teams Mandel calls losers.

(06-11-2015 12:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Oh, what the heck, let's nitpick this article.

Texas. The negatives he identified about the Horns -- coaching and AD turnover, on-field struggles by their own standards -- have nothing to do with realignment.

Nebraska. "Yes, the Huskers' new home is richer and more stable, but..." But what? He says "richer and more stable" as if it's a bad thing.

Texas A&M. Didn't seem like a natural fit in the SEC? Really? People have been saying for at least 25 years that A&M would be a good fit in the SEC.

BYU. "Largely backfired?" No. There are positives to BYU's move, from BYU's perspective, that outweigh the only negative (non-eligibility for the G5's access-bowl slot).

West Virginia. A loser? No. Being in the Big 12 instead of the AAC (their only alternative) is not a loss.

Boise State. He says, "To be fair, the Broncos are in a better spot than they were in the now-defunct WAC." That's what he should have stuck with. But then he blows it by arguing Boise is a loser just because they haven't hit the P5 lottery, which is like saying that every person who doesn't win the Powerball is a loser in life.

Idaho and NMSU. These teams shouldn't be at the bottom of the list. They are by far the biggest losers. Their ability to keep playing FBS football is hanging by a weak thread and will probably continue to do so for as long as they stay in FBS. Their coaches and ADs would crawl across broken glass just to be "stuck" in a G5 conference like the other teams Mandel calls losers.

The funny thing about Nebraska is that while their home is richer, they haven't seen it yet. Because of their buy-in, they've been running nearly $10 million a year behind what they would have made if they stayed. They made less in distributions last year than anybody but Utah among the P5 (Rutgers wasn't in yet). They have stability. But the move has cost them millions of dollars even without considering their buyout.

If they hadn't been in such a rush, it would seem they could have gotten a better deal from their new conference like Colorado, Texas A&M and Missouri did.

And actually the Big 10 isn't richer, yet. If Nebraska made what OU does on Tier III, they would be making about $5 million more a year than a full share in the Big 10 is earning.

(06-11-2015 12:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Oh, what the heck, let's nitpick this article.

Texas. The negatives he identified about the Horns -- coaching and AD turnover, on-field struggles by their own standards -- have nothing to do with realignment.

Nitpicking the nitpicks....Texas-in-the-Big-12 is being compared to the hypothetical Texas-in-the-PAC-16. Texas in the PAC 16 might have gotten a spark, might have gotten some of the recruits, attention and shine that Baylor and TCU have picked up. Also, to some extent, Texas-who-stayed suffers by comparison with A&M-who-left.

Quote:Nebraska. "Yes, the Huskers' new home is richer and more stable, but..." But what? He says "richer and more stable" as if it's a bad thing.

But Nebraska hasn't won anything, or looked like they were close. They're a in a low-population state, in a conference whose population center is Ohio-Michigan-Pennsylvania, where they don't have much of a recruiting track record.

Quote:BYU. "Largely backfired?" No. There are positives to BYU's move, from BYU's perspective, that outweigh the only negative (non-eligibility for the G5's access-bowl slot).

True. But what really backfired on BYU was bungling the Big 12 negotiations in 2011.

Quote:West Virginia. A loser? No. Being in the Big 12 instead of the AAC (their only alternative) is not a loss.

True, but as Stever20 said, WVU was in a better spot in 2010 than they are in 2015. Nobody else in the P5 went backwards.

(06-11-2015 12:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 12:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Oh, what the heck, let's nitpick this article.

Texas. The negatives he identified about the Horns -- coaching and AD turnover, on-field struggles by their own standards -- have nothing to do with realignment.

Nebraska. "Yes, the Huskers' new home is richer and more stable, but..." But what? He says "richer and more stable" as if it's a bad thing.

Texas A&M. Didn't seem like a natural fit in the SEC? Really? People have been saying for at least 25 years that A&M would be a good fit in the SEC.

BYU. "Largely backfired?" No. There are positives to BYU's move, from BYU's perspective, that outweigh the only negative (non-eligibility for the G5's access-bowl slot).

West Virginia. A loser? No. Being in the Big 12 instead of the AAC (their only alternative) is not a loss.

Boise State. He says, "To be fair, the Broncos are in a better spot than they were in the now-defunct WAC." That's what he should have stuck with. But then he blows it by arguing Boise is a loser just because they haven't hit the P5 lottery, which is like saying that every person who doesn't win the Powerball is a loser in life.

Idaho and NMSU. These teams shouldn't be at the bottom of the list. They are by far the biggest losers. Their ability to keep playing FBS football is hanging by a weak thread and will probably continue to do so for as long as they stay in FBS. Their coaches and ADs would crawl across broken glass just to be "stuck" in a G5 conference like the other teams Mandel calls losers.

The funny thing about Nebraska is that while their home is richer, they haven't seen it yet. Because of their buy-in, they've been running nearly $10 million a year behind what they would have made if they stayed. They made less in distributions last year than anybody but Utah among the P5 (Rutgers wasn't in yet). They have stability. But the move has cost them millions of dollars even without considering their buyout.

If they hadn't been in such a rush, it would seem they could have gotten a better deal from their new conference like Colorado, Texas A&M and Missouri did.

Agreed that Nebraska could have driven a better bargain with the Big Ten. I remember reading an interview with Osborne that gave the impression that he and the Nebraska president were kind of intimidated by Delany.

(06-11-2015 12:36 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

Quote:West Virginia. A loser? No. Being in the Big 12 instead of the AAC (their only alternative) is not a loss.

True, but as Stever20 said, WVU was in a better spot in 2010 than they are in 2015. Nobody else in the P5 went backwards.

West Virginia was not better off in 2010 than 2015. West Virginia was better off in 2007, but that had more to do with Steve Slaton, Pat White, Owen Schmitt and Rich Rodriguez than anything else.