Priorities for realignment - Printable Version +- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com) +-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html) +--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html) +---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html) +---- Thread: Priorities for realignment (/thread-820558.html) |
Priorities for realignment - MJG - 06-21-2017 06:07 PM P5 I think depending on where you're at SEC/B1G/PAC are equal. ACC would be next then Big 12 than Big East for obvious reasons. Then you have the A10-MVC-WCC if it is a West Coast religious school. AAC-MWC-MAC -the next to are even SBC-CUSA. Not really rating these they are different categories. Conference USA has raided the SBC in the past except for Texas St I doubt that will happen again. Horizon is made up of former Summit schools not sure how many Summit schools would be interested now. When one conference pays a lot more or has far superior academics or is a lot closer its an easy call. When a conference picks a school the priorities differ for each situation. So on average which factors are most important and which ones overrated? Market Athletic success Academics Facilities Distance from conference members Travel partner match Recruiting I think recruiting grounds is overrated C of C leaving the SoCon for CAA seems like added cost? UMKC to the WAC was an odd move. Also which schools could benefit from a lateral move. Like Northern Colorado to Summit Sac St to Big West without football being a factor. Maybe Oral Roberts to the WAC? Priorities for realignment - Jjoey52 - 06-21-2017 07:44 PM How can you do this without football being a factor, football is the main driver. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk RE: Priorities for realignment - MJG - 06-21-2017 08:18 PM (06-21-2017 07:44 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote: How can you do this without football being a factor, football is the main driver. I am assuming the Big Sky splits its football or allows a school like Sac St or UNC to be football only. The Summit could start football by adding Northern Colorado if they need a baseball team. No one thought UND would get a MVFC invite. Maybe Northern Colorado gets a MVFC invite then BSC would have ten/12. I was thinking below multi-bid or G5 conferences. Youngstown St being in the Horizon/MVFC is a good example of how FCS doesn't mind an odd fit here or there. RE: Priorities for realignment - gulfcoastgal - 06-21-2017 08:56 PM (06-21-2017 07:44 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote: How can you do this without football being a factor, football is the main driver. Agreed, it makes no sense to try and mix the two. For example if any A10, MVC or WCC school decides to go FBS, then the Big East isn't an option. For that matter, if any Big East school decides to go FBS, then viability is limited to AAC or Indy due to geography and related expenses. They really are different animals and can't be equitably compared in any sort of hierarchical structure. RE: Priorities for realignment - DavidSt - 06-21-2017 11:51 PM TV market is overrated. Asked C-USA just grabbing schools from large cities, but not grabbing good teams that could draw eyeballs that hurt them. RE: Priorities for realignment - Stugray2 - 06-22-2017 12:08 AM Most important is relevance Does a particular school make your conference more relevant, or more irrelevant. When conferences add the nearby safe school, we all groan and turn away (UC Riverside to the Big West, LUC to the MVC. what does that do?). When they add the one who raises the excitement level, even when it breaks the mold we pay attention (BYU to the WCC, Wichita State to the American, Butler to the Big East, Notre Dame to the ACC, GCU to the Horizon). They make us rethink the conference and how we value it, and it's place in our viewing and rooting habits. That doesn't mean go insane with it. When it fits and it makes a positive impact, you have done the right thing. When it is simply surprising but doesn't do much for you (Pitt and Syracuse to the ACC) it probably was not the best move to make. RE: Priorities for realignment - Kittonhead - 06-22-2017 10:15 PM The different priorities are played of each other. IUPUI just got an invite to the Horizon League because of travel and academics with 30,000 students. They brought absolutely nothing to the table athletically. As you move to the highest level conferences tradition becomes a factor. The AAC proved this by adding former SWC, SEC and Big East teams, all whom had played in a major bowl before. That is why the AAC isn't chomping at the bit over UMass or Georgia State. Boise State had to earn its way into the MWC while UNLV was a founding member because it won a national championship in basketball. And no one moved to the P5 unless they had deep athletic tradition, the exception being Rutgers the land grant school for New Jersey which is pretty important. RE: Priorities for realignment - Eldonabe - 06-23-2017 08:39 AM Kitt - Unfortunately you are right. Umass has potential (so does Ga State) but that is meaningless in today's "what will you do for me TODAY" world we now live in. You have to prove you can win, not just a lot of games but titles, and you have to overcome the war chests of all the schools who are already anointed..... it is a tough sell for sure. It is not like there is a hidden gem school out there anymore with some magic formula of untapped recruiting base and TV exposure. All the good ones are taken so to speak..... In the case of Umass they were late to the dance - which is the same thing as missing the dance. We are going to make an effort, but today it looks like little more that stoking a fire with $100 bills.... RE: Priorities for realignment - IceJus10 - 06-23-2017 10:17 AM (06-22-2017 10:15 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: And no one moved to the P5 unless they had deep athletic tradition, the exception being Rutgers the land grant school for New Jersey which is pretty important. Rutgers has been playing football since the 1860's, making for a pretty deep tradition. Winning and tradition are two different animals. RE: Priorities for realignment - Eldonabe - 06-23-2017 10:32 AM I am pretty sure Kitt was referring to the winning part. Rutgers does have an NC under their belt though: The 1949 Men's Fencing National Championship [Very Impressive ] Much to the disappointment of many (I am sure) Rutgers did also win a couple of National tournaments that the NCAA does not recognize as an NC: Womens AIAW Basketball in 1982; and Cheerleading in 1998 and 2009 I think you are right, HAVING sports and WINNING at them are definitely 2 different things RE: Priorities for realignment - Kittonhead - 06-23-2017 11:02 AM (06-23-2017 10:17 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:Tradition that Im thinking is mostly reflected in Final Fours and CFP bowls.(06-22-2017 10:15 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: And no one moved to the P5 unless they had deep athletic tradition, the exception being Rutgers the land grant school for New Jersey which is pretty important. Each of those add a major block of tradtion. Also a factor is the average amount of wins for a program over the past 5 years. One nice year doesnt say a whole lot because it can be the result of one big star but 4 or 5 in a row starts to. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app RE: Priorities for realignment - Underdog - 06-23-2017 11:06 AM (06-21-2017 06:07 PM)MJG Wrote: P5 I think depending on where you're at SEC/B1G/PAC are equal. RE: Priorities for realignment - nzmorange - 06-23-2017 09:52 PM (06-22-2017 12:08 AM)Stugray2 Wrote: Most important is relevance Wait, your theory is that Pitt and SU were bad adds? Bold move. RE: Priorities for realignment - Steve1981 - 06-23-2017 10:22 PM (06-23-2017 08:39 AM)Eldonabe Wrote: Kitt - Unfortunately you are right. Umass has potential (so does Ga State) but that is meaningless in today's "what will you do for me TODAY" world we now live in. You have to prove you can win, not just a lot of games but titles, and you have to overcome the war chests of all the schools who are already anointed..... it is a tough sell for sure. Yup, just win baby. We are only scheduling 3 P5 teams on average now and there seems to be no such thing as moral victories. Winning 2 out of the first 3 games will be huge in waking up the casual fan. Winning is everything now. RE: Priorities for realignment - DavidSt - 06-24-2017 04:27 AM (06-23-2017 10:22 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:(06-23-2017 08:39 AM)Eldonabe Wrote: Kitt - Unfortunately you are right. Umass has potential (so does Ga State) but that is meaningless in today's "what will you do for me TODAY" world we now live in. You have to prove you can win, not just a lot of games but titles, and you have to overcome the war chests of all the schools who are already anointed..... it is a tough sell for sure. UMass. came close on beating some P5 schools the last couple of years, and totally suck against G5 schools. RE: Priorities for realignment - Steve1981 - 06-24-2017 09:13 AM (06-24-2017 04:27 AM)DavidSt Wrote:(06-23-2017 10:22 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:(06-23-2017 08:39 AM)Eldonabe Wrote: Kitt - Unfortunately you are right. Umass has potential (so does Ga State) but that is meaningless in today's "what will you do for me TODAY" world we now live in. You have to prove you can win, not just a lot of games but titles, and you have to overcome the war chests of all the schools who are already anointed..... it is a tough sell for sure. Yes, when you play quality P5 teams like we did, they beat the sh-t out of the players. The rest of the season, we are play with the walking wounded. No moral victories, schedule smarter and learning how to win is a must. Last year after Florida and Mississippi State, the home game against Tulane and away game against ODU were especially painful. Like you said, we were crap against the remainder of the season playing G5 teams. The last game against Hawaii was a shoot out, losing in the middle of the Pacific 40-46. We've parted ways with the defensive coordinator, but not sure how much can be expected learning a new system. |