Good article on how the various conference jumpers have done.

All have done pretty well. TCU seems like the biggest winner from the info in the article.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...take-shape

It's crazy and yet interesting to realize that the most successful team to make the jump is unquestionably Mizzou. Mizzou's football team has actually won something. That's quite impressive for one of the more overlooked schools throughout this realignment process.

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely agree with this.

Rutgers jumped from a sinking raft onto the QM2

It's hard to point to any team that made a move that is worse off than if they had stayed. For all the angst that realignment seems to have caused, the only schools that are losers are the ones who didn't find a chair when the music stopped.

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

The real story is the change of the teams' performance. And in that area, it's clear that Texas A&M and Missouri made the biggest jumps. Of course it helps that they get to pad their resume with the likes of Arkansas, Kentucky, Vandy, and the Mississippi teams, all of which would regularly have been cellar dwellers in the old Big 12.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article only showed the early jumpers...none of the schools that started in Fall 13 or later were analyzed.

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

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

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

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

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

Very interesting reading. It's a pretty good summary of the major moves in the latest round of realignment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While that is true about '78 and '06 being the only outstanding years, Rutgers has gone bowling every year since '05 except for '10 when Eric LeGrand was paralyzed during the season. The idea that Rutgers football has always been terrible doesn't standup to close scrutiny.

Utah hasn't exactly been world beaters in the Pac 12, but the Utes haven't completely fallen flat on their faces either.

(09-30-2014 06:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(10-01-2014 12:45 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(09-30-2014 06:23 PM)bullet Wrote:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed. But, it was a different era then. And programs still cared about loyalty and tradition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To be fair, Rutgers was a private school for much of its history and didn't transition to being a public, state school until the 1940's and 50's.

That being said, RU's football record in over 60 seasons still wasn't very good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My father always used to say Rutgers is the unwoken beast of the east. Just has never seemed to happpen.

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

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

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

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

I think the correct term would be "much improved sunbelt conference"... But in all seriousness, C-USA is among the top G-5 conferences. I am extremely happy with the conference and it will only improve.