(06-11-2015 07:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 07:21 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 01:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 01:42 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 01:30 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I would contend that the most important criteria for determining "winners" and "losers" is to compare where a school would be if they didn't move. I think all of the above are "winners" by that definition.

I think if you compare each school's before and after position, the biggest "winners" would be TCU and Utah (went from non-BCS to P5- by far the biggest gap), followed by Rutgers, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse and WVU (went from weakest BCS that became G5 conference to P5 conferences). Maryland, A&M and Mizzou prob have the next biggest gap (BCS to strongest P5 conferences, but old conferences are still P5), followed by CU (BCS to P5). I think if you look at the before/after gap Colorado probably is at the bottom of that list in terms of "winners". They are probably in a more stable situation but really it a more lateral move than any of the other school's moves IMO.

I think you look at it comparing their position 5 years ago to their position now. WVU before was the big dog of the Big East. Now, Rutgers, Louisville, Pitt, and Syracuse all passed them up big time without any doubt. Maryland, A&M, and Missouri all upgraded their positions big time. Colorado is in a better position I think- much closer to how they view themselves. Nebraska in a much more stable position.

Think of it like this- WVU went from being the top dog in the weakest BCS to the lowest rung in probably the weakest P5. Hardly a realignment winner at all.

The top dog in weakest of the 6 which was barely hanging onto its power position to arguably the 2nd strongest competitively and without a doubt the 3rd strongest financially in the P5. Big win.

Rutgers, Pitt and SU haven't passed WVU in any manner. All are making less and will continue to do so. None have done much in football. Louisville hasn't passed WVU either, although that is at least arguable. It wasn't Louisville, Rutgers, Pitt or SU picked to play Alabama in a kickoff game last year.

Syracuse and Pitt both have gone to bowls since being in the ACC. And the money difference is not enough of a game changer, especially once the new tv deals are done and the Big 12 will be placed firmly in fifth place like they have always been before.

Just answer me this question. Would WV leave the Big 12 if they had a chance and go to the ACC? The answer is YES!. And you ALL know this. Your Adm would take an invite in a heartbeat if they could get out of a Big 12 GOR.

Now, answer me this question: Would SU or Pitt leave the ACC to join the Big 12? The answer is NO WAY! In fact, we know that Pitt already spurned the Big 12 to go to the ACC. Pitt and SU are bigger winners. Just live with it.

You're missing the point. Mandel and Steve are saying WVU is a loser and has fallen behind Pitt and SU. I'm not saying they are happier than Pitt and SU, but that they haven't fallen behind athletically, are ahead financially and they are a winner. Everyone who escaped the BE in the last couple of years is a winner.

The Big 12 was ahead of the Pac 12 before the last round of contracts and will remain ahead of the Pac 12 and ACC through the remainder of this cycle. Beyond that, no one knows.

Very true. No one knows. But the ACC had always made more tv money than the Big 12 until this last cycle, because of bad timing the ACC made a bad deal. The whole reason the Big 12 wont expand now is because any new member will reduce the payouts because the tv revenue would have to be divided by 12 or 14 rather than being divided by 10.

(06-11-2015 07:40 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 07:27 PM)Groo Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 07:21 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 01:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 01:42 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think you look at it comparing their position 5 years ago to their position now. WVU before was the big dog of the Big East. Now, Rutgers, Louisville, Pitt, and Syracuse all passed them up big time without any doubt. Maryland, A&M, and Missouri all upgraded their positions big time. Colorado is in a better position I think- much closer to how they view themselves. Nebraska in a much more stable position.

Think of it like this- WVU went from being the top dog in the weakest BCS to the lowest rung in probably the weakest P5. Hardly a realignment winner at all.

The top dog in weakest of the 6 which was barely hanging onto its power position to arguably the 2nd strongest competitively and without a doubt the 3rd strongest financially in the P5. Big win.

Rutgers, Pitt and SU haven't passed WVU in any manner. All are making less and will continue to do so. None have done much in football. Louisville hasn't passed WVU either, although that is at least arguable. It wasn't Louisville, Rutgers, Pitt or SU picked to play Alabama in a kickoff game last year.

Syracuse and Pitt both have gone to bowls since being in the ACC. And the money difference is not enough of a game changer, especially once the new tv deals are done and the Big 12 will be placed firmly in fifth place like they have always been before.

Just answer me this question. Would WV leave the Big 12 if they had a chance and go to the ACC? The answer is YES!. And you ALL know this. Your Adm would take an invite in a heartbeat if they could get out of a Big 12 GOR.

Now, answer me this question: Would SU or Pitt leave the ACC to join the Big 12? The answer is NO WAY! In fact, we know that Pitt already spurned the Big 12 to go to the ACC.

Really? Gonna need a link for that? Would Syracuse get an invite? UofL didn't, is Syracuse a better university than Louisville? Pittsburgh was playing to its' regional interests and won out. No faulting them now.

There all kinds of articles out about Pitt being in talks with the Big 12 back in 2011. Then suddenly the discussions ended and a couple of weeks later, we learned that Pitt and Syracuse were invited to the ACC.

One Such Article Link

And you asking if Syracuse would even get a Big 12 invite shows that you missed the point that they would never leave the ACC for the Big 12 in the first place.

Syracuse wouldn't have gotten an invite (much like Uconn won't). My reasoning for this, (I will give you the benefit of doubt) is that you were geographically inhibited for an invite. My issue with this quote string, is that the ACC will magically end up with a bigger revenue than the Big XII. The presumption that Syracuse is somehow better than WVU because it got into an anemic ACC ahead of WVU is some sort of bragging trophy, falls short as the Big XII is a better conference in my opinion. And I would love to see some links from WVU that the ACC was their first choice.

(06-11-2015 07:40 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  There all kinds of articles out about Pitt being in talks with the Big 12 back in 2011. Then suddenly the discussions ended and a couple of weeks later, we learned that Pitt and Syracuse were invited to the ACC.

One Such Article Link

Pitt really played that well, and they're fortunate it turned out the way it did for them. The ACC might not have expanded at that time if Pitt hadn't gone to them and said, "Hey, we've been contacted by the Big 12..."

If Pitt had not gone to the ACC, and instead just tried to play out the string with the Big 12, Pitt might have ended up in the same position as WVU, having to make a big payment to meet the Big 12's need for teams to move immediately, or maybe they wouldn't have ended up with a Big 12 invitation at all, and would have been stuck on the sinking Big East ship.

(06-11-2015 07:45 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 07:28 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 07:21 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 01:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 01:42 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think you look at it comparing their position 5 years ago to their position now. WVU before was the big dog of the Big East. Now, Rutgers, Louisville, Pitt, and Syracuse all passed them up big time without any doubt. Maryland, A&M, and Missouri all upgraded their positions big time. Colorado is in a better position I think- much closer to how they view themselves. Nebraska in a much more stable position.

Think of it like this- WVU went from being the top dog in the weakest BCS to the lowest rung in probably the weakest P5. Hardly a realignment winner at all.

The top dog in weakest of the 6 which was barely hanging onto its power position to arguably the 2nd strongest competitively and without a doubt the 3rd strongest financially in the P5. Big win.

Rutgers, Pitt and SU haven't passed WVU in any manner. All are making less and will continue to do so. None have done much in football. Louisville hasn't passed WVU either, although that is at least arguable. It wasn't Louisville, Rutgers, Pitt or SU picked to play Alabama in a kickoff game last year.

Syracuse and Pitt both have gone to bowls since being in the ACC. And the money difference is not enough of a game changer, especially once the new tv deals are done and the Big 12 will be placed firmly in fifth place like they have always been before.

Just answer me this question. Would WV leave the Big 12 if they had a chance and go to the ACC? The answer is YES!. And you ALL know this. Your Adm would take an invite in a heartbeat if they could get out of a Big 12 GOR.

Now, answer me this question: Would SU or Pitt leave the ACC to join the Big 12? The answer is NO WAY! In fact, we know that Pitt already spurned the Big 12 to go to the ACC. Pitt and SU are bigger winners. Just live with it.

You're missing the point. Mandel and Steve are saying WVU is a loser and has fallen behind Pitt and SU. I'm not saying they are happier than Pitt and SU, but that they haven't fallen behind athletically, are ahead financially and they are a winner. Everyone who escaped the BE in the last couple of years is a winner.

The Big 12 was ahead of the Pac 12 before the last round of contracts and will remain ahead of the Pac 12 and ACC through the remainder of this cycle. Beyond that, no one knows.

Very true. No one knows. But the ACC had always made more tv money than the Big 12 until this last cycle, because of bad timing the ACC made a bad deal. The whole reason the Big 12 wont expand now is because any new member will reduce the payouts because the tv revenue would have to be divided by 12 or 14 rather than being divided by 10.

It was heralded as a great deal at the time. One factor that has changed is that basketball is not as big relative to football.

LUCKily for them, WVU did what they had to do. Had they turned down the B12,Louisville would have probably gotten the offer or if Jurich wanted to honor their commitment to the BE then Cincy might have jumped or even BYU. In either case once Maryland left, where would the ACC turn? Not likely to WVU IMO. I think they would approach whichever of these 3 remained, Cincy,Louisville and despite the objection of BC UConn. That would leave WVU in the American.
WVU is better off now than the likely alternative

As a Kansas fan and a Big XII fan, WVU was the best fit imo.

(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.....

1. Get rid of Bill Callahan
2. Get rid of Bo Pelini.

What Nebraska needed was Barry Alvarez. Wisconsin is running Nebraska's program in Madison.

TCU a generation ago: SWC castoff, left for dead in the WAC.

TCU today: A top 10 football team, two CWS in three years.

The realignment winner.

(06-11-2015 07:58 PM)Groo Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 07:40 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 07:27 PM)Groo Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 07:21 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 01:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  The top dog in weakest of the 6 which was barely hanging onto its power position to arguably the 2nd strongest competitively and without a doubt the 3rd strongest financially in the P5. Big win.

Rutgers, Pitt and SU haven't passed WVU in any manner. All are making less and will continue to do so. None have done much in football. Louisville hasn't passed WVU either, although that is at least arguable. It wasn't Louisville, Rutgers, Pitt or SU picked to play Alabama in a kickoff game last year.

Syracuse and Pitt both have gone to bowls since being in the ACC. And the money difference is not enough of a game changer, especially once the new tv deals are done and the Big 12 will be placed firmly in fifth place like they have always been before.

Just answer me this question. Would WV leave the Big 12 if they had a chance and go to the ACC? The answer is YES!. And you ALL know this. Your Adm would take an invite in a heartbeat if they could get out of a Big 12 GOR.

Now, answer me this question: Would SU or Pitt leave the ACC to join the Big 12? The answer is NO WAY! In fact, we know that Pitt already spurned the Big 12 to go to the ACC.

Really? Gonna need a link for that? Would Syracuse get an invite? UofL didn't, is Syracuse a better university than Louisville? Pittsburgh was playing to its' regional interests and won out. No faulting them now.

There all kinds of articles out about Pitt being in talks with the Big 12 back in 2011. Then suddenly the discussions ended and a couple of weeks later, we learned that Pitt and Syracuse were invited to the ACC.

One Such Article Link

And you asking if Syracuse would even get a Big 12 invite shows that you missed the point that they would never leave the ACC for the Big 12 in the first place.

Syracuse wouldn't have gotten an invite (much like Uconn won't). My reasoning for this, (I will give you the benefit of doubt) is that you were geographically inhibited for an invite. My issue with this quote string, is that the ACC will magically end up with a bigger revenue than the Big XII. The presumption that Syracuse is somehow better than WVU because it got into an anemic ACC ahead of WVU is some sort of bragging trophy, falls short as the Big XII is a better conference in my opinion. And I would love to see some links from WVU that the ACC was their first choice.

You can't be serious...WVU is located 1-8 hours away by car (not Jet) from the majority of ACC teams. WVU has been trying to get into the ACC since the early 50's. WVU went to the B12 cuz it had no other viable choice.

The ACC has a larger population base than the B12...TV dollars will catch up.

You can't have a big winners and losers assessment from realignment, without including the WCC amongst the biggest winners. They added BYU and brought back Pacific. That conference is absolutely amongst the biggest beneficiaries of the past five years.

(06-11-2015 09:26 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  TCU a generation ago: SWC castoff, left for dead in the WAC.

TCU today: A top 10 football team, two CWS in three years.

The realignment winner.

No...I pick winners on who is in a geographic sensible conference, among like peers, TV money, attractive conference opponents to new school, and potential to do well in the future recruiting. The current wins/losses is secondary as it is dependent on past recruiting cycles and coaching hires.

Food for thought.....is West Virginia in the B12 any more unusual than Colorado in the Big 8?

For decades as western school Colorado felt out of place. Now it is much more comfortable in the PAC where the western names are more familiar to students.

WVU's travel in the B12 isn't that big of a factor. The ACC isn't exactly a bus league.

WVU's in the best football conference its ever played in. A conference that annually vies for best in the country.

(06-11-2015 10:44 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 09:26 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  TCU a generation ago: SWC castoff, left for dead in the WAC.

TCU today: A top 10 football team, two CWS in three years.

The realignment winner.

No...I pick winners on who is in a geographic sensible conference, among like peers, TV money, attractive conference opponents to new school, and potential to do well in the future recruiting. The current wins/losses is secondary as it is dependent on past recruiting cycles and coaching hires.

In this particular case, wins/losses is not a secondary factor. The coaching hire factor doesn't apply either because Gary Patterson has been at TCU through all this realignment. He started out in '98 as their defensive coordinator and became the full-time head coach in 2001. He has watched the Frogs move from the WAC to C-USA to the Mountain West and finally, the Big 12.

Boise was able to bend the MWC over by agreeing not to move to the AAC and is now pocketing 3.5 million a year in TV money with all the appearance fees. The WAC was paying out around 400,000 per school in its last TV deal so there is a decent financial jump.

The CFP money out of the MWC will average close to 2 million for Boise on top of that so they are netting about 5 million more post realignment. They may be the biggest winners of the G5. There is only western conference to contend with now instead of 2.

Southern Miss is a big loser. CUSA isn't as strong and the addition of all the new FBS schools will dilute recruiting. They are at a disadvantage of getting to that access bowl out of CUSA (See Marshall 2013). Conference is falling apart with UAB dropping football and then reinstating it.

Next will be Fox dropping its TV deal with CUSA for one year and then promising to bring it back.

(06-11-2015 11:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Boise was able to bend the MWC over by agreeing not to move to the AAC and is now pocketing 3.5 million a year in TV money with all the appearance fees. The WAC was paying out around 400,000 per school in its last TV deal so there is a decent financial jump.

The CFP money out of the MWC will average close to 2 million for Boise on top of that so they are netting about 5 million more post realignment. They may be the biggest winners of the G5. There is only western conference to contend with now instead of 2.

Southern Miss is a big loser. CUSA isn't as strong and the addition of all the new FBS schools will dilute recruiting. They are at a disadvantage of getting to that access bowl out of CUSA (See Marshall 2013). Conference is falling apart with UAB dropping football and then reinstating it.

Next will be Fox dropping its TV deal with CUSA for one year and then promising to bring it back.

I think there is an untapped source right now from the middle of the country for recruits. The Dakotas and Montanas. None of the FBS conferences have a footprint in those three states, and we have seen talent from those state in Montana, Montana State and all four Dakotas in all sports. Those two states are the big loser in the realignment scene. That is why we need the WAC back by getting Idaho, New Mexico State, San Jose State and UNLV to reform the football. From what I understand, a FBS conference still have credit to be an FBS conference if they reformed it. So, and conferences that were FBS can still be counted. I don't think they really abandoned FBS in the WAC yet. I think they are working on a deal with an FCS conference as a merger of the football as part of the WAC.

(06-11-2015 02:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 12:59 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Nebraska didn't do its homework. According to their guys, they heard the rumor about Missouri, Pitt, Rutgers, and some others, knew Colorado was gone, and ran straight eastward. Why they never bothered tagging along with Colorado (because no way in the blazes does the PAC take Utah over Nebraska)

Nebraska didn't have to actually go to the Pac with Colorado, though they could have if they'd wanted to. All they had to do was talk to the Pac and use that to leverage a better deal out of the Big Ten.

I agree that Nebraska (and the rest of the Big Ten west) isn't getting a good deal out of the divisional alignment, and the potential danger for the western Big Ten schools is that Ohio State and Michigan will ally themselves more with the rest of the east, including the eastern newbies, and maybe even break away at some point. IMO the western Big Ten schools would just be inviting an eventual split if they vote to supersize the Big Ten by bringing in UNC, UVa, Duke, etc.

It's more the total lack of due diligence on Nebraska's public front where the Colorado tag-team thing is drawn. The Big Ten wanted BOTH those schools back in the 90's, and would have adjusted for 14 back then if both would have wanted to come in. The problem with Nebraska was its nearly century-long courtship with the conference. That was the Big Ten's leverage...they knew Nebraska could apply. Nebraska just never saw itself as a left-coaster like Colorado did. I think Nebraska could have almost named its terms had it worked more publicly with Colorado and the PAC...I still believe to this day the Big Ten leaked its applicants because they didn't want them, including Rutgers, at that time.

It is what it is. Both sides got what they wanted in a certain way, but the Big Ten got the better end of it by far.

It's funny to me how we see Rutgers as a winner in this, too. Had anyone better made themselves available to the Big Ten, or had B1G-PAC been enough to halt the conference membership to twelve, where they'd be would be of legend. Another school who let their ideal conference walk all over them.

(06-11-2015 10:44 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 09:26 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  TCU a generation ago: SWC castoff, left for dead in the WAC.

TCU today: A top 10 football team, two CWS in three years.

The realignment winner.

No...I pick winners on who is in a geographic sensible conference, among like peers, TV money, attractive conference opponents to new school, and potential to do well in the future recruiting. The current wins/losses is secondary as it is dependent on past recruiting cycles and coaching hires.

TCU has both. TCU is far and away the realignment winner in this go around, and it's not even close.

West Virginia is a CR winner compared to UConn or Cincinnati, but a CR loser compared to anyone else in the P5 who moved.

They're in a position somewhat like the new Big East, where we landed well, but we're not in as good a spot as we were in 2009. We escaped the fate of the SWC left-behinds, which was our major fear. In basketball, we're on a level playing field with the P5 conferences. But, of course, we lost Syracuse, Louisville, UConn etc, and we're not IN the AQ/P5 club.

(06-12-2015 07:55 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 10:44 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-11-2015 09:26 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  TCU a generation ago: SWC castoff, left for dead in the WAC.

TCU today: A top 10 football team, two CWS in three years.

The realignment winner.

No...I pick winners on who is in a geographic sensible conference, among like peers, TV money, attractive conference opponents to new school, and potential to do well in the future recruiting. The current wins/losses is secondary as it is dependent on past recruiting cycles and coaching hires.

TCU has both. TCU is far and away the realignment winner in this go around, and it's not even close.

Rutgers is the Biggest Winner...as Mandel stated they hit the Jackpot...nothing against TCU because they are in their Dream League and very successful

totally disagree about Rutgers. TCU wasn't in the BCS 5 years ago, and now they are. Rutgers upgraded without a doubt, but no where near TCU.