(03-18-2023 12:18 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(03-18-2023 11:56 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  True, but the question was if they would still be valuable. My answer is yes, but they would be behind the conferences that I listed.

Here's how I would break it down:

Tier 1 value

Big East, Big 8, PAC, SWC

Tier 2 value

BIG, SEC

Tier 3 value

ACC

Keep in mind this was done alphabetically. The Big 8 and the SWC would be the most valuable conferences, followed by the Big East and PAC.

Reasoning?

The intrinsic reasons that the SEC and B1G are most valuable today aren't any different in this alternate world? (There's more power spread around, so they're not doubly-lapping the field, but they still have a comfortable lead.)

And the Big 8? (Checks lists of national championships and geographic location...) Not seeing that.

Without Penn State and letting Notre Dame slip through their fingers, the BIG loses some of their overall value. The SEC suffers a similar fate without Arkansas and South Carolina, who gave them the ability to sponsor a conference championship game. The day the inaugural SEC championship game was played, the conference's fate was sealed as it would go on to be what it is today. Without that, they lose some of their value. Also, Colorado and Nebraska won National Championships in the Big 8 in the 90's (although Colorado won a split national championship with Georgia Tech).

(03-18-2023 12:18 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(03-18-2023 11:56 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  True, but the question was if they would still be valuable. My answer is yes, but they would be behind the conferences that I listed.

Here's how I would break it down:

Tier 1 value

Big East, Big 8, PAC, SWC

Tier 2 value

BIG, SEC

Tier 3 value

ACC

Keep in mind this was done alphabetically. The Big 8 and the SWC would be the most valuable conferences, followed by the Big East and PAC.

Reasoning?

The intrinsic reasons that the SEC and B1G are most valuable today aren't any different in this alternate world? (There's more power spread around, so they're not doubly-lapping the field, but they still have a comfortable lead.)

And the Big 8? (Checks lists of national championships and geographic location...) Not seeing that.

I would argue that splitting up the big 8 and SWC has significantly enhanced the Brand value of a lot of our schools, including "also-rans" from the old days like Baylor, OSU, TCU, and UH. A&M has certainly benefited significantly, too, joining the SEC was the most impactful decision our school has ever made Athletically. Nebraska...they'd still be Nebraska whether in the B1G, big 8, or big 12. OUT? Obviously, we have no data points on them yet, but I suspect that joining the SEC will be quite positive for them (as well as the entire SEC including A&M).

(03-18-2023 12:18 PM)djsuperfly Wrote:  

(03-18-2023 11:56 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  True, but the question was if they would still be valuable. My answer is yes, but they would be behind the conferences that I listed.

Here's how I would break it down:

Tier 1 value

Big East, Big 8, PAC, SWC

Tier 2 value

BIG, SEC

Tier 3 value

ACC

Keep in mind this was done alphabetically. The Big 8 and the SWC would be the most valuable conferences, followed by the Big East and PAC.

Reasoning?

The intrinsic reasons that the SEC and B1G are most valuable today aren't any different in this alternate world? (There's more power spread around, so they're not doubly-lapping the field, but they still have a comfortable lead.)

And the Big 8? (Checks lists of national championships and geographic location...) Not seeing that.

The Big Ten would have been at or near the top of any conference list regardless of their performance on the field. They are mostly very large public flagship schools, all located then in the Midwest. This is true today, and it was true in 1991.

The SEC was a very strong regional conference in its 10-team configuration. Its value came from the passion of its fan bases and the depth of penetration of their small markets. The addition of the football championship game in 1992 was a gamechanger for them. They would also have been at or near the top of such a list in the early 90's.

On-field and on-court performance were never an issue for the Big 8. It was a lack of population and TV sets. Outside of the bluebloods, these were and are regional brands. Nationally, Oklahoma/Nebraska football and Kansas basketball carried the conference.

I just wish they had some kind of ironclad rule/law (like how Title IX didn't really intend to revolutionize women's college sports, but did) that capped conferences at 10 members.

Then we'd have at least seven power conferences, then 2 semi-power (WAC, and either SWC/C-USA), and the G5.

(03-18-2023 10:09 AM)Blue76 Wrote:  

(03-18-2023 08:30 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Your timeline is a bit off. What you’re describing is closer to the 1989 line up. Penn St to the Big 10 in December 1989 was the first domino. The noted exception was that the Big East had not coalesced as a football conference all those schools were Indy in football and their other sports were: Big East—Pitt, Cuse, BC; A-10–Rutgers, WVU, Temple; Metro—VT; Indy—Miami.

Those moves in 1989 and 1990 were huge in determining the course of college football.

After the 1984 Supreme Court ruling, you already had the ground work in place to where it made sense for programs to gravitate towards the conferences who were already strong.

Penn State moved to Big Ten in 1993 for football

In 1991 Big East football started, but it was a lose connection, standing weren’t official for 2 more years.

My recollection of the chronology of major independents…

Penn State first committed to the B10 in late 1989, but it took until 1993 to start playing as a football member.

FSU then committed to the ACC, and took until 1992 to start playing as a football member.

Finally, Miami announced its commitment to the Big East in late 1990. Miami was the last major independent to commit. When Miami committed to the Big East, there were only three members that played FBS-level football (BC, Syracuse and Pitt) and the conference didn’t sponsor football. The conference claimed 1991 as its inception, yet Miami only played two games against conference members in 1991.

(03-18-2023 07:04 AM)Blue76 Wrote:  in 1991 the Big East started football, the top seven conferences looked like this:

ACC (8) - Clemson, NCSU, GT, UVa, UNC, UMd, Duke, Wake
Big East (8) - Syracuse, Miami, VT, Pitt, WVU, Rutgers, Boston Col, Temple
Big 8 (8) - Nebraska, Colorado, Oklahoma, KSU, Kansas, Iowa St, Mizzou, Ok State
Big Ten (10) - Michigan, Iowa, tOSU, Indiana, Illi, Purdue, MSU, Wisc, Nwstn, Minnie
Pac 10 (10) - Wash, Cal, UCLA, Stanford, ASU, WSU, Arizona, USC, Oregon, OSU
SEC (10) - Fla, Bama, Tenn, UGa, Miss State, LSU, Vandy, Auburn, Ole Miss, UK
SWC (9) - TAMU, Baylor, TTU, Arkansas, TCU, Texas, Houston, Rice, SMU

Penn State, S Carolina, Notre Dame, Florida State were Independents
Utah, BYU in WAC

If PSU & Notre Dame joined Big East
USC-e & FSU to ACC
Utah & BYU to Big 8
Then SWC could add Tulane or maybe Memphis

You are left with

ACC (10) - Clemson, NCSU, GT, UVa, UNC, UMd, Duke, Wake, FSU, S Carolina
Big East (10) - SU, Miami, VT, Pitt, WVU, Rutgers, Boston Col, Temple, PSU, ND
Big 8 (10) - NU, CU, OU, KSU, KU, ISU, MU, OSU, UU, BYU
Big Ten (10) - Michigan, Iowa, tOSU, Indiana, Illi, Purdue, MSU, Wisc, Nwstn, Minnie
Pac 10 (10) - Wash, Cal, UCLA, Stanford, ASU, WSU, Arizona, USC, Oregon, OSU
SEC (10) - Fla, Bama, Tenn, UGa, Miss State, LSU, Vandy, Auburn, Ole Miss, UK
SWC (10) - TAMU, Baylor, TTU, Arkansas, TCU, UT, Houston, Rice, SMU, TU/Memphis

If this was the line up in 2023 which conferences would be considered Power & who would be getting the best media deals?

My guess of these theoretical 10-team conferences:

Top football power: SEC. Alabama, UGA, LSU, and Florida are all winning multiple national championships this century. Auburn and Tennessee add depth.

Top media deal: B10. Ohio State and Michigan are still the top 2 media attractions. Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan State add depth and large fan bases.

These seven conferences would all be Power conferences, but the inherent advantages of the SEC (football strength) and B10 (best media brands) remain.

(03-18-2023 12:29 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  Without Penn State and letting Notre Dame slip through their fingers, the BIG loses some of their overall value. The SEC suffers a similar fate without Arkansas and South Carolina, who gave them the ability to sponsor a conference championship game. The day the inaugural SEC championship game was played, the conference's fate was sealed as it would go on to be what it is today. Without that, they lose some of their value. Also, Colorado and Nebraska won National Championships in the Big 8 in the 90's (although Colorado won a split national championship with Georgia Tech).

Ok. So, not getting certain additions makes the B1G and SEC "lose some of their value?" I don't think anyone would argue with that.

But IRL the SEC and B1G are doubling up the field. Losing SOME of their value would still have them comfortably ahead of everyone else. (Again, the foundational reasons why they are what they are today would still mostly exist.)

For the Big Ten and Southwest Confernece especially also remember population differences. The Midwest was a bigger chunk of the the population and Texas was much smaller as a percent. This also helps the Big East. If I recall an old article right, deals at the time gave the SEC moderately more than the Big East the first go round before the differences grew (meaning the SEC was likely inherently more valuable, but earlier analysis put them closer together then they should have been).

(03-18-2023 10:03 AM)Blue76 Wrote:  

(03-18-2023 08:30 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Your timeline is a bit off. What you’re describing is closer to the 1989 line up. Penn St to the Big 10 in December 1989 was the first domino. The noted exception was that the Big East had not coalesced as a football conference all those schools were Indy in football and their other sports were: Big East—Pitt, Cuse, BC; A-10–Rutgers, WVU, Temple; Metro—VT; Indy—Miami.

Those moves in 1989 and 1990 were huge in determining the course of college football.

After the 1984 Supreme Court ruling, you already had the ground work in place to where it made sense for programs to gravitate towards the conferences who were already strong.

Penn State moved to Big Ten in 1993 for football

In 1991 Big East football started, but it was a lose connection, standing weren’t official for 2 more years.

You marking things by the date the move occurred, not when they were announced. The announcement dates are the better because they mark the date a school and conference committed to each other. The decisions were made, the schools in question are simply serving out their existing commitments.

Ex. It makes no sense to speculate Penn St in 1991 because they were already committed to the Big 10 at that point.

(03-18-2023 10:00 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Cheering for conferences — like some folks (and perhaps more than I realize) do on this board — was not particularly popular in the 1970s through the mid to late 1990s. And sometimes I view the "pro-whatever conference" mindset from some posters on on this board as somewhat over the top.

I've never strongly rooted for the SEC as a collective league, despite having watched SEC sports for about 50 years now as a Vanderbilt fan. But I will admit that I've become a bit "pro-SEC" the past few years. Not sure why.

I agree. There was some conference pride on the line back in the day - e.g. the Rose Bowl always emphasized the PAC vs B1G nature of their game - but it was clearly less conference-centric than now.

What happened in the late 1990s to change this was IMO the BCS. First, the AQ vs non-AQ division drew a starker line between the Have and Have-Not conferences. Second, a formal two-team title game quickly shined a spotlight on which of the Have conferences were making that game and which ones weren't.

(03-19-2023 08:26 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(03-18-2023 10:03 AM)Blue76 Wrote:  

(03-18-2023 08:30 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Your timeline is a bit off. What you’re describing is closer to the 1989 line up. Penn St to the Big 10 in December 1989 was the first domino. The noted exception was that the Big East had not coalesced as a football conference all those schools were Indy in football and their other sports were: Big East—Pitt, Cuse, BC; A-10–Rutgers, WVU, Temple; Metro—VT; Indy—Miami.

Those moves in 1989 and 1990 were huge in determining the course of college football.

After the 1984 Supreme Court ruling, you already had the ground work in place to where it made sense for programs to gravitate towards the conferences who were already strong.

Penn State moved to Big Ten in 1993 for football

In 1991 Big East football started, but it was a lose connection, standing weren’t official for 2 more years.

You marking things by the date the move occurred, not when they were announced. The announcement dates are the better because they mark the date a school and conference committed to each other. The decisions were made, the schools in question are simply serving out their existing commitments.

Ex. It makes no sense to speculate Penn St in 1991 because they were already committed to the Big 10 at that point.

Just like in 2011 when Boise St & SDSU we’re COMMITTED to the Big East

Until you actually take to the field nothing should be assumed

(03-19-2023 09:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-18-2023 10:00 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Cheering for conferences — like some folks (and perhaps more than I realize) do on this board — was not particularly popular in the 1970s through the mid to late 1990s. And sometimes I view the "pro-whatever conference" mindset from some posters on on this board as somewhat over the top.

I've never strongly rooted for the SEC as a collective league, despite having watched SEC sports for about 50 years now as a Vanderbilt fan. But I will admit that I've become a bit "pro-SEC" the past few years. Not sure why.

I agree. There was some conference pride on the line back in the day - e.g. the Rose Bowl always emphasized the PAC vs B1G nature of their game - but it was clearly less conference-centric than now.

What happened in the late 1990s to change this was IMO the BCS. First, the AQ vs non-AQ division drew a starker line between the Have and Have-Not conferences. Second, a formal two-team title game quickly shined a spotlight on which of the Have conferences were making that game and which ones weren't.

Spot on assessment.

And for example: Memphis football/basketball was, in many respects, better off in the 1970s and 1980s than is the case today. The football program was an independent — so it was not "branded" as inferior due to the "G5" tag it now has. And the basketball program was a member of the Metro Conference, which would be considered a power men's hoops league if it existed today.

(03-18-2023 12:31 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I would argue that splitting up the big 8 and SWC has significantly enhanced the Brand value of a lot of our schools, including "also-rans" from the old days like Baylor, OSU, TCU, and UH. A&M has certainly benefited significantly, too, joining the SEC was the most impactful decision our school has ever made Athletically. Nebraska...they'd still be Nebraska whether in the B1G, big 8, or big 12. OUT? Obviously, we have no data points on them yet, but I suspect that joining the SEC will be quite positive for them (as well as the entire SEC including A&M).

The breakup of the SWC forced the private schools to step up their game. TCU and Baylor took opposite directions to get to where they wanted to go, and both got there. TCU wandered through multiple conferences, while Baylor languished at the bottom of the Big 12 for years in both major sports while cashing Big 12 checks. Both schools invested in coaches and facilities. Baylor has won a NC in men's basketball, three in women's basketball, and has won Big 12 championships in football. TCU made multiple BCS bowl games and played in this year's CFP championship. Baylor built a new football stadium and has plans for a new arena. TCU has rebuilt both their football stadium and their arena. None of this would have happened with their status and resources in the SWC.

The Big 12, timed with the influx of the Pickens cash, was the best thing to happen to OSU. For the first time in the modern era, OSU gained major exposure in Texas, where they recruit players and students, and have a large number of alumni. The Big 12, and especially the 10-team version of the Big 12, has been very good for OSU.

Likewise, Houston was forced to step it up, as well. They rebuilt both their football stadium and basketball arena. They are competitive in football and have a good chance to win a national championship in men's basketball.

Once A&M joined the SEC, competition there forced them to up their game, as well. As Bryan alluded to in another thread, the standard became the SEC, and not Texas. A&M invested in coaches and facilities to keep up with the SEC. They're now not merely competing to beat Texas, but to win in the SEC.

I, too, believe Nebraska would have been Nebraska no matter the conference. But, the changes in the landscape would have affected them in the Big 12 as it did in the B1G. They may not have fallen as far, but their days of dominance would have nonetheless ended.

The jury is still out on OU and Texas. Texas has endless potential in every sport. That's both a blessing and a curse. With their resources and expectations, it's truly national championship or bust in Austin. I'm concerned about OU, but I think we'll be ok. We need the increase in revenue from the SEC. I don't know if we'll compete for NCs in football again, but we had hit a ceiling of 4th in the nation playing in the Big 12. Also, our men's basketball program needs help. Right now, we're softball and gymnastics fans at OU.

South Carolina was barely a top 50 program in 1991. East Carolina, Georgia Tech and Syracuse all had better facilities. But the SEC move changed everything. It took 15-20 years, but the money started coming in and success eventually came.

Their facilities have improved ten-fold since. And that is just one example.

(03-18-2023 11:32 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(03-18-2023 08:32 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(03-18-2023 08:19 AM)djsuperfly Wrote:  It's 1991...we don't need to rank the conferences because nobody rooted for conferences.

This. You guys always want to look at this from a 2023 lens. In 1991 Southern Miss was a better program than the two SEC Mississippi schools and many others on the “in” list. Ditto for East Carolina and Louisville. Virginia Tech was not yet Virginia Tech and its Olympic sports were in the in the Midwest. Many of the schools you lost did not have the enrollment and academic profile at that time that they have today.

I'm not even sure that A&M was a top 25 program in 1991, we were in line for a few good years followed by 20 mostly sucky years. We didn't become TEXAS A&M until joining the SEC.

A&M won the National Championship in 1939.

The WAC in 1991:

Air Force
BYU
Colorado State
Hawaii
New Mexico
San Diego State
Utah
UTEP
Wyoming

Fresno State joined in 1992 and that’s when expansion should’ve stopped.

BYU won the NC seven years prior in 1984.

(03-19-2023 09:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-18-2023 10:00 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Cheering for conferences — like some folks (and perhaps more than I realize) do on this board — was not particularly popular in the 1970s through the mid to late 1990s. And sometimes I view the "pro-whatever conference" mindset from some posters on on this board as somewhat over the top.

I've never strongly rooted for the SEC as a collective league, despite having watched SEC sports for about 50 years now as a Vanderbilt fan. But I will admit that I've become a bit "pro-SEC" the past few years. Not sure why.

I agree. There was some conference pride on the line back in the day - e.g. the Rose Bowl always emphasized the PAC vs B1G nature of their game - but it was clearly less conference-centric than now.

What happened in the late 1990s to change this was IMO the BCS. First, the AQ vs non-AQ division drew a starker line between the Have and Have-Not conferences. Second, a formal two-team title game quickly shined a spotlight on which of the Have conferences were making that game and which ones weren't.

What it really had to do with was the fact that, beginning with the Bowl Coalition, there was a national championship game. Trying to find the "right" 2 teams for that game, SOS became a very important metric. So, it became super-important for your opponents to do well to bolster your SOS. As such, fans began rooting FOR the other teams in their conference so that their team looked better.