Heisman winner SC Justice Byron White was correct in his dissent. Marked the beginning of the end for collegiate sport!

Wasn’t it always about money? Before 1984 it was just the crooked NCAA hogging it all. Old guys believing their time was the best blah blah.

(01-16-2018 09:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 07:28 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 05:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 04:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 01:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Interestingly, those remarks referred to fact that the new teams probably brought a better on the field product to the Big East than existed before. Based on the fist few years, they appear to have been far more right than wrong.

Not even close. We'll leave basketball aside because that's an obvious rout in favor of the old Big East, but even on football terms alone, the old Big East was WAY better than the AAC. E.g., in the 8 years of the "rump" Big East, 2005 - 2012, the Big East was ranked (Sagarin) last among the six AQ conferences in only two of those years, 2005 and 2010. In 2006 and 2009, the Big East finished second behind the SEC, beating out the ACC, B1G, PAC, and Big 12.

IOW's, for six of those eight years, the Big East beat out at least one other AQ conference in terms of strength. In fact, it's Sagarin average for the entire eight years was better than the B1G and equal to the ACC. It was essentially tied for 4th among the six AQ conferences.

In contrast, the best the AAC has been able to do is argue that one year, this year, it was actually closer to the lowest-ranked P5 as it was to the nearest-ranked G5.

In football, the AAC has always, every year, been well behind the worst Power conference. In contrast, the Big East was usually better than the worst AQ conference. The Big "Least" was actually a full-fledged Power football conference on the field, the best the AAC can argue is that it is a tweener between the P5 and other G5.

Sagarin? Did the Big East rump win on NYD at a 100% pace? Not even close. The Big East was barely over .500 (8-7 in the BCS era). Your "not even close" mantra is silly. Frankly, the shocking poor showing of ECU and Cinci has hurt the AAC. If those 2 programs start playing anywhere near to their norms of the last decade or 2 and the league will be in excellent shape.

My "not even close" mantra is spot on.

The "rump" 2005 - 2012 Big East was a full-fledged Power conference, finishing well within the mix of AQ conferences over that 8 year period.

The AAC, sadly, has never been anywhere close to "power". In fact, in 2014 the AAC finished *third* among the *G5*, behind the MWC and C-USA!

Think about that: The 2005-2012 Big East never finished behind any non-AQ conferences, and 6 out of 8 years, beat out at least one Power conference, and for the eight years, finished ahead of the B1G and tied with the ACC.

In contrast, the AAC has never come close to finishing ahead of a Power conference, and has finished behind other G5 conferences!

As for bowls, that's laughable: The 2005 - 2012 Big East was a sterling 27 - 15 in bowl games. The Big East had a WINNING bowl record in 7 of those 8 years, including the last 7 in a row.

The AAC? This was the first year of its existence that the AAC didn't have a LOSING bowl record, and it barely eeked by at 4-3. The AAC is a sad 12-20 in bowl games.

A yawning chasm in performance: The old Big East was WAY better on the gridiron than the AAC has ever been.

And yet not a single old BE team has ever won the AAC. Not a single team that left the Big East rump has ever won its new power conference home. In fact, most of the teams that left the Big Est rump have been celler dwellers in their new homes. Odd that the first year of the AAC a southern team with talent recruited for CUSA finished ahead of Louisville, Rutgers, UConn, Cinci, and USF...and then convincingly beat the Big 12 champ in a BCS bowl. Pretty impressive accomplishment for a group that "wasnt even close". Probably ranked behind all those teams in the computer.

Completely irrelevant, as teams change from year to year, especially when one joins a new conference.

Bottom line is that in terms of performance on the field, even the 'Big Least' of 2005 - 2012 was a much better football conference than the current AAC. It's just the way it was and is.

(01-14-2018 04:02 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  ESPN has way too much power and control of college football. Hopefully this will change.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

HATE THE MOUSE

I'm trying to think of the clear winners and losers of the last 27 years of realignment:

Winners:
- old SEC, ACC, Pac 12, and Big Ten schools - more money, CCGs, prestige
- SC, Arkansas, TAMU, Missouri
- Florida St, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse
- Utah, Colorado
- Rutgers, Penn St
- UCF/USF
- Boise St
- TCU, Baylor

Losers:
- Miami - hasn't been a huge success in ACC
- Boston College - better fit in Big East
- possibly Maryland and Nebraksa
- West Virginia- debatable
- Kansas, KSU, Iowa St
- NMSU and Idaho
- BYU
- SMU, Rice, Houston

I will have to disagree with you on that, Gamecock. Miami was able to upgrade its basketball program in the ACC, and, thanks to my team's former hc, Mark Right, the 'Canes are starting to look a lot like their old selves again. BC is a mixed bag as is Missouri. I agree with you on Nebraska.

This is going to sound downright insane, but I actually believe Maryland was a winner in realignment. Maybe not so much in football, but in men's basketball & lacrosse, it is definitely fear the turtle !! Maryland is slowly becoming to the Big Ten in basketball what FSU started out being to the ACC in football.

Not sure if I would call BYU a loser either, considering they've done pretty good for themselves as an Indy in football and a member of the WCC in basketball and all other sports.

You didn't mention another mixed bag though: ND. Yes, they upgraded basketball & Olympics, but at what price? Might it have been better to wait for the C7 schools to secede and then join them??

Louisiana Tech was a huge winner in realignment, IMO. I'd say Cincy was a loser for now, along with UConn to some extent. USM was a loser also, IMO. Tulane and Tulsa both came out winners, and Memphis did as well.

(01-16-2018 03:08 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Assuming the supposition of the OP is correct, the operative date is June 2, 1984, the day that the US Supreme Court ruled in NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma. That decision put television rights in the hands of the schools. Virtually every realignment decision made after that date has been driven by an effort to increase or protect the value of television rights fees.

While the 1984 court case definitely had an immediate impact (more than twice as many college football games were broadcast in 1984 than in 1983), the rest of the 80s were still a relatively sleepy time in terms of conference monetization and realignment. From 1984 - 1990, TV was still not a conference-level thing, the court-victorious CFA took over from the NCAA.

So IMO, real credit (or blame) here goes to Notre Dame, with their 1989/1990 decision to sign their own TV deal with NBC. That broke up the CFA arrangement in which the conferences were kind of partners, made it clear it was either every conference or school for itself. A key aspect of this was that it put the conference offices under the gun to deliver real monetary gains, especially to their blue-chip members. Schools like Ohio State, Texas, and USC suddenly saw Notre Dame making gobs more TV money, and conference admins realized that they might bolt for independence as well if the conference couldn't start delivering much greater money. The ND deal was in that sense an existential threat to the major conferences.

The Notre Dame deal with NBC is really what kicked off the big early 1990s realignment flurry. In particular, it made it clear how valuable football could be. It led to the ACC adding FSU to boost its football value, to the destruction of the classic 1980s basketball-only Big East, with them adding football and Miami, to the SEC adding South Carolina, Arkansas, and pioneering the CCG, to the B1G adding Penn State, and to the formation of the first Bowl Alliance.

All of that flurry of activity occurred between 1991-1993, right after ND broke the game wide open with its NBC deal. Notre Dame, before anyone else, realized that the 1984 decision had much greater monetary implications especially for football.

(01-17-2018 09:59 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I will have to disagree with you on that, Gamecock. Miami was able to upgrade its basketball program in the ACC, and, thanks to my team's former hc, Mark Right, the 'Canes are starting to look a lot like their old selves again. BC is a mixed bag as is Missouri. I agree with you on Nebraska.

This is going to sound downright insane, but I actually believe Maryland was a winner in realignment. Maybe not so much in football, but in men's basketball & lacrosse, it is definitely fear the turtle !! Maryland is slowly becoming to the Big Ten in basketball what FSU started out being to the ACC in football.

Not sure if I would call BYU a loser either, considering they've done pretty good for themselves as an Indy in football and a member of the WCC in basketball and all other sports.

You didn't mention another mixed bag though: ND. Yes, they upgraded basketball & Olympics, but at what price? Might it have been better to wait for the C7 schools to secede and then join them??

Louisiana Tech was a huge winner in realignment, IMO. I'd say Cincy was a loser for now, along with UConn to some extent. USM was a loser also, IMO. Tulane and Tulsa both came out winners, and Memphis did as well.

Michigan State and Purdue say Hi.

Maryland is ONE OF the best B1G teams. FSU went 70-2 in the ACC from 1992 to 2000. There's no comparison.

Every school during the 2010's realignment was a winner, money-wise, except for UConn, USF, Cincinnati, Idaho, NMSU, and the five holdovers from C-USA (Rice, UTEP, USM, UAB, Marshall). Everyone else is making more money, including the current Big East, WV, Nebraska, Missouri, UMass, the remaining and new members of the Sun Belt, the MAC, and the remaining and new members of the MWC.

(01-17-2018 10:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 03:08 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Assuming the supposition of the OP is correct, the operative date is June 2, 1984, the day that the US Supreme Court ruled in NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma. That decision put television rights in the hands of the schools. Virtually every realignment decision made after that date has been driven by an effort to increase or protect the value of television rights fees.

While the 1984 court case definitely had an immediate impact (more than twice as many college football games were broadcast in 1984 than in 1983), the rest of the 80s were still a relatively sleepy time in terms of conference monetization and realignment. From 1984 - 1990, TV was still not a conference-level thing, the court-victorious CFA took over from the NCAA.

So IMO, real credit (or blame) here goes to Notre Dame, with their 1989/1990 decision to sign their own TV deal with NBC. That broke up the CFA arrangement in which the conferences were kind of partners, made it clear it was either every conference or school for itself. A key aspect of this was that it put the conference offices under the gun to deliver real monetary gains, especially to their blue-chip members. Schools like Ohio State, Texas, and USC suddenly saw Notre Dame making gobs more TV money, and conference admins realized that they might bolt for independence as well if the conference couldn't start delivering much greater money. The ND deal was in that sense an existential threat to the major conferences.

The Notre Dame deal with NBC is really what kicked off the big early 1990s realignment flurry. In particular, it made it clear how valuable football could be. It led to the ACC adding FSU to boost its football value, to the destruction of the classic 1980s basketball-only Big East, with them adding football and Miami, to the SEC adding South Carolina, Arkansas, and pioneering the CCG, to the B1G adding Penn State, and to the formation of the first Bowl Alliance.

All of that flurry of activity occurred between 1991-1993, right after ND broke the game wide open with its NBC deal. Notre Dame, before anyone else, realized that the 1984 decision had much greater monetary implications especially for football.

The “classic 80’s basketball-only Big East” was started for the reasons of separating themselves from their long-time rivals and being on TV. It destructed because the leaders had no real long-term vision.

(01-17-2018 11:43 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 10:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 03:08 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Assuming the supposition of the OP is correct, the operative date is June 2, 1984, the day that the US Supreme Court ruled in NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma. That decision put television rights in the hands of the schools. Virtually every realignment decision made after that date has been driven by an effort to increase or protect the value of television rights fees.

While the 1984 court case definitely had an immediate impact (more than twice as many college football games were broadcast in 1984 than in 1983), the rest of the 80s were still a relatively sleepy time in terms of conference monetization and realignment. From 1984 - 1990, TV was still not a conference-level thing, the court-victorious CFA took over from the NCAA.

So IMO, real credit (or blame) here goes to Notre Dame, with their 1989/1990 decision to sign their own TV deal with NBC. That broke up the CFA arrangement in which the conferences were kind of partners, made it clear it was either every conference or school for itself. A key aspect of this was that it put the conference offices under the gun to deliver real monetary gains, especially to their blue-chip members. Schools like Ohio State, Texas, and USC suddenly saw Notre Dame making gobs more TV money, and conference admins realized that they might bolt for independence as well if the conference couldn't start delivering much greater money. The ND deal was in that sense an existential threat to the major conferences.

The Notre Dame deal with NBC is really what kicked off the big early 1990s realignment flurry. In particular, it made it clear how valuable football could be. It led to the ACC adding FSU to boost its football value, to the destruction of the classic 1980s basketball-only Big East, with them adding football and Miami, to the SEC adding South Carolina, Arkansas, and pioneering the CCG, to the B1G adding Penn State, and to the formation of the first Bowl Alliance.

All of that flurry of activity occurred between 1991-1993, right after ND broke the game wide open with its NBC deal. Notre Dame, before anyone else, realized that the 1984 decision had much greater monetary implications especially for football.

The “classic 80’s basketball-only Big East” was started for the reasons of separating themselves from their long-time rivals and being on TV. It destructed because the leaders had no real long-term vision.

The schools didn't share a vision so what the league office did reflected that.

(01-17-2018 09:31 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I'm trying to think of the clear winners and losers of the last 27 years of realignment:

Winners:
- old SEC, ACC, Pac 12, and Big Ten schools - more money, CCGs, prestige
- SC, Arkansas, TAMU, Missouri
- Florida St, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse
- Utah, Colorado
- Rutgers, Penn St
- UCF/USF
- Boise St
- TCU, Baylor

Losers:
- Miami - hasn't been a huge success in ACC
- Boston College - better fit in Big East
- possibly Maryland and Nebraksa
- West Virginia- debatable
- Kansas, KSU, Iowa St
- NMSU and Idaho
- BYU
- SMU, Rice, Houston

I don't know if I'd call USF a winner per se, since they were in a "power" conference and are no longer. Cincinnati, UConn, and Temple (partly) are also in the same boat.

Of the ones you call "losers," I'd say that only NMSU, Idaho, SMU, Rice, and Houston are actual losers. Miami, BC, UMD, Nebraska, and WV are certainly winners for moving into better conferences. Kansas, KSU, and ISU have sort of broke even. Though the Big 12 took a big hit during realignment, they're at least still in a power conference. And any troubles BYU may be facing are of their own making.

(01-17-2018 11:46 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 11:43 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 10:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 03:08 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Assuming the supposition of the OP is correct, the operative date is June 2, 1984, the day that the US Supreme Court ruled in NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma. That decision put television rights in the hands of the schools. Virtually every realignment decision made after that date has been driven by an effort to increase or protect the value of television rights fees.

While the 1984 court case definitely had an immediate impact (more than twice as many college football games were broadcast in 1984 than in 1983), the rest of the 80s were still a relatively sleepy time in terms of conference monetization and realignment. From 1984 - 1990, TV was still not a conference-level thing, the court-victorious CFA took over from the NCAA.

So IMO, real credit (or blame) here goes to Notre Dame, with their 1989/1990 decision to sign their own TV deal with NBC. That broke up the CFA arrangement in which the conferences were kind of partners, made it clear it was either every conference or school for itself. A key aspect of this was that it put the conference offices under the gun to deliver real monetary gains, especially to their blue-chip members. Schools like Ohio State, Texas, and USC suddenly saw Notre Dame making gobs more TV money, and conference admins realized that they might bolt for independence as well if the conference couldn't start delivering much greater money. The ND deal was in that sense an existential threat to the major conferences.

The Notre Dame deal with NBC is really what kicked off the big early 1990s realignment flurry. In particular, it made it clear how valuable football could be. It led to the ACC adding FSU to boost its football value, to the destruction of the classic 1980s basketball-only Big East, with them adding football and Miami, to the SEC adding South Carolina, Arkansas, and pioneering the CCG, to the B1G adding Penn State, and to the formation of the first Bowl Alliance.

All of that flurry of activity occurred between 1991-1993, right after ND broke the game wide open with its NBC deal. Notre Dame, before anyone else, realized that the 1984 decision had much greater monetary implications especially for football.

The “classic 80’s basketball-only Big East” was started for the reasons of separating themselves from their long-time rivals and being on TV. It destructed because the leaders had no real long-term vision.

The schools didn't share a vision so what the league office did reflected that.

I disagree -- the schools initially invited into the Big East were ECAC members who played, or had the ability to play, in larger arenas and were potential NCAA tournament schools. The ECAC was a large group of all Div 1 schools and the changing rules of conference play would have made the tournament unreachable for most of the schools.

Football wasn't a concern until much later. If the football bowl/TV/independence status had meshed with what happened for basketball in the 70s, I think the Big East and Eastern 8 would have formed along different lines (football vs. non-football) and the Lambert schools would probably still be together, including Penn State, in one of those two conferences.

Perhaps UMass, UConn and Villanova play 1A football throughout and that also has an impact on how the conferences form. But basically, 1/2 of the FBS football schools in the Northeast are in the Eastern 8/Atlantic 10 and the other half are in the Big East. Rearrange those conferences and something would have stuck.

(01-17-2018 11:58 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 09:31 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I'm trying to think of the clear winners and losers of the last 27 years of realignment:

Winners:
- old SEC, ACC, Pac 12, and Big Ten schools - more money, CCGs, prestige
- SC, Arkansas, TAMU, Missouri
- Florida St, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse
- Utah, Colorado
- Rutgers, Penn St
- UCF/USF
- Boise St
- TCU, Baylor

Losers:
- Miami - hasn't been a huge success in ACC
- Boston College - better fit in Big East
- possibly Maryland and Nebraksa
- West Virginia- debatable
- Kansas, KSU, Iowa St
- NMSU and Idaho
- BYU
- SMU, Rice, Houston

I don't know if I'd call USF a winner per se, since they were in a "power" conference and are no longer. Cincinnati, UConn, and Temple (partly) are also in the same boat.

Of the ones you call "losers," I'd say that only NMSU, Idaho, SMU, Rice, and Houston are actual losers. Miami, BC, UMD, Nebraska, and WV are certainly winners for moving into better conferences. Kansas, KSU, and ISU have sort of broke even. Though the Big 12 took a big hit during realignment, they're at least still in a power conference. And any troubles BYU may be facing are of their own making.

SMU, Rice, Houston, and New Mexico St are probably the only obvious true losers in that 27 year time frame (ie-clearly better off 27 years ago than today). Everyone else is the same or better. Some rose and fell DURING that 27 year time frame--but only those 4 were clearly better off 27 years ago than today.

(01-17-2018 12:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 11:58 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 09:31 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I'm trying to think of the clear winners and losers of the last 27 years of realignment:

Winners:
- old SEC, ACC, Pac 12, and Big Ten schools - more money, CCGs, prestige
- SC, Arkansas, TAMU, Missouri
- Florida St, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse
- Utah, Colorado
- Rutgers, Penn St
- UCF/USF
- Boise St
- TCU, Baylor

Losers:
- Miami - hasn't been a huge success in ACC
- Boston College - better fit in Big East
- possibly Maryland and Nebraksa
- West Virginia- debatable
- Kansas, KSU, Iowa St
- NMSU and Idaho
- BYU
- SMU, Rice, Houston

I don't know if I'd call USF a winner per se, since they were in a "power" conference and are no longer. Cincinnati, UConn, and Temple (partly) are also in the same boat.

Of the ones you call "losers," I'd say that only NMSU, Idaho, SMU, Rice, and Houston are actual losers. Miami, BC, UMD, Nebraska, and WV are certainly winners for moving into better conferences. Kansas, KSU, and ISU have sort of broke even. Though the Big 12 took a big hit during realignment, they're at least still in a power conference. And any troubles BYU may be facing are of their own making.

SMU, Rice, Houston, and New Mexico St are probably the only obvious true losers in that 27 year time frame (ie-clearly better off 27 years ago than today). Everyone else is the same or better.

That's a good point about Idaho. They were in the Big Sky then, and are back in the Big Sky again. So they broke even.

And USF didn't even have a football team then, so they are indeed better off today. UConn was in I-AA then, so they're doing better. Cincinnati and Temple, hard to say either way.

(01-17-2018 11:58 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 09:31 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I'm trying to think of the clear winners and losers of the last 27 years of realignment:

Winners:
- old SEC, ACC, Pac 12, and Big Ten schools - more money, CCGs, prestige
- SC, Arkansas, TAMU, Missouri
- Florida St, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse
- Utah, Colorado
- Rutgers, Penn St
- UCF/USF
- Boise St
- TCU, Baylor

Losers:
- Miami - hasn't been a huge success in ACC
- Boston College - better fit in Big East
- possibly Maryland and Nebraksa
- West Virginia- debatable
- Kansas, KSU, Iowa St
- NMSU and Idaho
- BYU
- SMU, Rice, Houston

I don't know if I'd call USF a winner per se, since they were in a "power" conference and are no longer. Cincinnati, UConn, and Temple (partly) are also in the same boat.

Of the ones you call "losers," I'd say that only NMSU, Idaho, SMU, Rice, and Houston are actual losers. Miami, BC, UMD, Nebraska, and WV are certainly winners for moving into better conferences. Kansas, KSU, and ISU have sort of broke even. Though the Big 12 took a big hit during realignment, they're at least still in a power conference. And any troubles BYU may be facing are of their own making.

Connecticut has to be one of the luckiest schools to make the FBS transition, well at least from a Massachusetts fan's perspective. We both played in the Yankee Conference, but when it became a football-only (I-AA) conference UConn jumped to the Big East and UMass jumped to the Eastern Eight (A10). Big East decided to sponsor I-A football and UMass fans had to sit and watch as our conference was raided of some of its biggest brands. Despite being a basketball power at the time we never got the invite. Then the year after UMass won the I-AA National Championship, UConn moved up to I-A with BCS (AQ) conference membership. Had a transition from I-AA to BCS membership EVER happened before, or happened since? Not that I can recall certainly. Still no invitation for their rival they've been playing since 1897 (same year as Michigan-Ohio St. rivalry for some context).

Maybe UCONN deserves to be a P5 member, they've certainly shown their willingness to invest in athletics. But at the same time, I don't feel bad that they got "left behind" if only out of envy for their situation and hope that one day we can play in the same conference like old times.

(01-17-2018 12:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 11:58 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 09:31 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I'm trying to think of the clear winners and losers of the last 27 years of realignment:

Winners:
- old SEC, ACC, Pac 12, and Big Ten schools - more money, CCGs, prestige
- SC, Arkansas, TAMU, Missouri
- Florida St, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse
- Utah, Colorado
- Rutgers, Penn St
- UCF/USF
- Boise St
- TCU, Baylor

Losers:
- Miami - hasn't been a huge success in ACC
- Boston College - better fit in Big East
- possibly Maryland and Nebraksa
- West Virginia- debatable
- Kansas, KSU, Iowa St
- NMSU and Idaho
- BYU
- SMU, Rice, Houston

I don't know if I'd call USF a winner per se, since they were in a "power" conference and are no longer. Cincinnati, UConn, and Temple (partly) are also in the same boat.

Of the ones you call "losers," I'd say that only NMSU, Idaho, SMU, Rice, and Houston are actual losers. Miami, BC, UMD, Nebraska, and WV are certainly winners for moving into better conferences. Kansas, KSU, and ISU have sort of broke even. Though the Big 12 took a big hit during realignment, they're at least still in a power conference. And any troubles BYU may be facing are of their own making.

SMU, Rice, Houston, and New Mexico St are probably the only obvious true losers in that 27 year time frame (ie-clearly better off 27 years ago than today). Everyone else is the same or better. Some rose and fell DURING that 27 year time frame--but only those 4 were clearly better off 27 years ago than today.

Putting New Mexico St aside, I agree the other 3 are in the "loser" category, but its of their own doing. TCU was in the same position as the other 3, but was the only one that took the demotion as a slap in the face, and did something about it. They made good hires in all facets of the university (Chancellor, AD, HC), and had a vision for the future that the community and alumni not only bought into, but contributed. (It also didn't hurt being in a part of the country that benefitted from the natural gas boom!)

SMU was plagued by the DP, so I think they had a long way to go. Rice is a top ranked academic institution, and I feel they cherish that more than being known for athletics. Houston is the one that really dropped the ball. If they did anything close to what TCU did in terms of facilities and putting a focus on all things athletic, they would most likely have been chosen instead of TCU to the Big 12. That's a case of too little, too late. They have made the commitment now, but they better hope its not too late.

(01-17-2018 12:01 PM)megadrone Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 11:46 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 11:43 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 10:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-16-2018 03:08 PM)orangefan Wrote:  Assuming the supposition of the OP is correct, the operative date is June 2, 1984, the day that the US Supreme Court ruled in NCAA v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma. That decision put television rights in the hands of the schools. Virtually every realignment decision made after that date has been driven by an effort to increase or protect the value of television rights fees.

While the 1984 court case definitely had an immediate impact (more than twice as many college football games were broadcast in 1984 than in 1983), the rest of the 80s were still a relatively sleepy time in terms of conference monetization and realignment. From 1984 - 1990, TV was still not a conference-level thing, the court-victorious CFA took over from the NCAA.

So IMO, real credit (or blame) here goes to Notre Dame, with their 1989/1990 decision to sign their own TV deal with NBC. That broke up the CFA arrangement in which the conferences were kind of partners, made it clear it was either every conference or school for itself. A key aspect of this was that it put the conference offices under the gun to deliver real monetary gains, especially to their blue-chip members. Schools like Ohio State, Texas, and USC suddenly saw Notre Dame making gobs more TV money, and conference admins realized that they might bolt for independence as well if the conference couldn't start delivering much greater money. The ND deal was in that sense an existential threat to the major conferences.

The Notre Dame deal with NBC is really what kicked off the big early 1990s realignment flurry. In particular, it made it clear how valuable football could be. It led to the ACC adding FSU to boost its football value, to the destruction of the classic 1980s basketball-only Big East, with them adding football and Miami, to the SEC adding South Carolina, Arkansas, and pioneering the CCG, to the B1G adding Penn State, and to the formation of the first Bowl Alliance.

All of that flurry of activity occurred between 1991-1993, right after ND broke the game wide open with its NBC deal. Notre Dame, before anyone else, realized that the 1984 decision had much greater monetary implications especially for football.

The “classic 80’s basketball-only Big East” was started for the reasons of separating themselves from their long-time rivals and being on TV. It destructed because the leaders had no real long-term vision.

The schools didn't share a vision so what the league office did reflected that.

I disagree -- the schools initially invited into the Big East were ECAC members who played, or had the ability to play, in larger arenas and were potential NCAA tournament schools. The ECAC was a large group of all Div 1 schools and the changing rules of conference play would have made the tournament unreachable for most of the schools.

Football wasn't a concern until much later. If the football bowl/TV/independence status had meshed with what happened for basketball in the 70s, I think the Big East and Eastern 8 would have formed along different lines (football vs. non-football) and the Lambert schools would probably still be together, including Penn State, in one of those two conferences.

Perhaps UMass, UConn and Villanova play 1A football throughout and that also has an impact on how the conferences form. But basically, 1/2 of the FBS football schools in the Northeast are in the Eastern 8/Atlantic 10 and the other half are in the Big East. Rearrange those conferences and something would have stuck.

The ECAC was broken up into regional groups that became conferences anyway, if I recall correctly. I agree it was done for the betterment of basketball, but football was definitely on the radar early on because Pitt was invited specifically to thwart Paterno’s plans for an all-sports league.

The Big East was a nice experiment, but it was destined to fracture with two of its leading programs playing big-time football. It falls back on the leaders (school presidents and conference execs) to not consider this issue in the long-term.

(01-17-2018 09:59 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I will have to disagree with you on that, Gamecock. Miami was able to upgrade its basketball program in the ACC, and, thanks to my team's former hc, Mark Right, the 'Canes are starting to look a lot like their old selves again. BC is a mixed bag as is Missouri. I agree with you on Nebraska.

This is going to sound downright insane, but I actually believe Maryland was a winner in realignment. Maybe not so much in football, but in men's basketball & lacrosse, it is definitely fear the turtle !! Maryland is slowly becoming to the Big Ten in basketball what FSU started out being to the ACC in football.

Not sure if I would call BYU a loser either, considering they've done pretty good for themselves as an Indy in football and a member of the WCC in basketball and all other sports.

You didn't mention another mixed bag though: ND. Yes, they upgraded basketball & Olympics, but at what price? Might it have been better to wait for the C7 schools to secede and then join them??

Louisiana Tech was a huge winner in realignment, IMO. I'd say Cincy was a loser for now, along with UConn to some extent. USM was a loser also, IMO. Tulane and Tulsa both came out winners, and Memphis did as well.

You could absolutely make the case for all of those schools you mentioned. Perhaps I should have labelled more of them unclear or TBD.

If Miami gets it's football back under Richt than it's absolutely a win, its just I have to see it first.

(01-17-2018 11:58 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 09:31 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I'm trying to think of the clear winners and losers of the last 27 years of realignment:

Winners:
- old SEC, ACC, Pac 12, and Big Ten schools - more money, CCGs, prestige
- SC, Arkansas, TAMU, Missouri
- Florida St, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse
- Utah, Colorado
- Rutgers, Penn St
- UCF/USF
- Boise St
- TCU, Baylor

Losers:
- Miami - hasn't been a huge success in ACC
- Boston College - better fit in Big East
- possibly Maryland and Nebraksa
- West Virginia- debatable
- Kansas, KSU, Iowa St
- NMSU and Idaho
- BYU
- SMU, Rice, Houston

I don't know if I'd call USF a winner per se, since they were in a "power" conference and are no longer. Cincinnati, UConn, and Temple (partly) are also in the same boat.

Of the ones you call "losers," I'd say that only NMSU, Idaho, SMU, Rice, and Houston are actual losers. Miami, BC, UMD, Nebraska, and WV are certainly winners for moving into better conferences. Kansas, KSU, and ISU have sort of broke even. Though the Big 12 took a big hit during realignment, they're at least still in a power conference. And any troubles BYU may be facing are of their own making.

I was more looking at it from 1990 to present. Overall their stock is up even if it is down from 2006.

(01-17-2018 01:40 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 11:58 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-17-2018 09:31 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  I'm trying to think of the clear winners and losers of the last 27 years of realignment:

Winners:
- old SEC, ACC, Pac 12, and Big Ten schools - more money, CCGs, prestige
- SC, Arkansas, TAMU, Missouri
- Florida St, Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse
- Utah, Colorado
- Rutgers, Penn St
- UCF/USF
- Boise St
- TCU, Baylor

Losers:
- Miami - hasn't been a huge success in ACC
- Boston College - better fit in Big East
- possibly Maryland and Nebraksa
- West Virginia- debatable
- Kansas, KSU, Iowa St
- NMSU and Idaho
- BYU
- SMU, Rice, Houston

I don't know if I'd call USF a winner per se, since they were in a "power" conference and are no longer. Cincinnati, UConn, and Temple (partly) are also in the same boat.

Of the ones you call "losers," I'd say that only NMSU, Idaho, SMU, Rice, and Houston are actual losers. Miami, BC, UMD, Nebraska, and WV are certainly winners for moving into better conferences. Kansas, KSU, and ISU have sort of broke even. Though the Big 12 took a big hit during realignment, they're at least still in a power conference. And any troubles BYU may be facing are of their own making.

I was more looking at it from 1990 to present. Overall their stock is up even if it is down from 2006.

Temple would be another to add to the loser category -- dropped from AQ/Bowl Coalition in 1995 to the AAC (although it was uncertain if they would drop football entirely for a while after the Big East expulsion).

You could make the claim that their problems were of their own making -- but external forces worked against them as well. Had they been full Big East members the football expulsion never would have happened. Would it have made an overall difference? It's hard to tell.

But if you look at "power" status (i.e. possible to play for the National Championship) from 1995 when the SWC played their last season to now, Houston, Rice, SMU and Temple lost, Louisville and Utah are winners, New Mexico State is probably a loser (independent versus Big West/WAC/Sun Belt) and other schools are in the same spot as they were in 1995.