I have been on this board for awhile and have read many threads saying my school this, this school is better than that school, etc...

Well I have finally come to a breaking point. Here are my thoughts on college realignment and such

Issue #1: Superior conferences - There are many ways to value conference affiliation. I think it is common to see schools chase monie$ - which is fine and their choice. But not all schools will chase this, and many have other priorities
- rivalries (why A&M caused so much uproar)
- regionality (why Boise didnt go Big East)
- Competition (why staying in CUSA is not favored as opposed to joining C-TBA)
- Market growth (why SMU wants to gain an Eastern audience)
- Success (why Army chose no conference)

The assumption that every school wants the same thing is dumb. If you look at the history of conferences, there has been about the same amount of schools for years coming in and out of Div1 play

Issue #2: Conference rating - the SEC is not the end all, be all. Once upon a time, the SEC was you run of the mill conference. Tulane left, Vandy almost did as well to join the Magnolia League. The WAC had its hay-day. There too could be a time when C-TBA or whoever can rise up to compete in 'big-boy play'.

Issue #3: My school is better than yours BS

We have all heard it. There are certainly schools with much more national prestige, expectation, and following than others. But in reality, its not a black or white type deal. Sure Texas is not the same as Eastern Michigan... But tell me this, does Washington State really deserve to make so much more than Central Florida? Is Wake Forest in the 'in crowd' when compared to Tulsa?

The answer is NO. The need to seperate your schools worth by conference affiliation, claiming in theory, you're "better" than the other is proposterous.

I just read a thread saying "Is the 5 top conferences really going to let Cincy and UConn suffer?" Because they are popular kids forced to play with the losers? Wow...

Issue #4: A school can't improve or create more value, it stays at it's current worth.

This one also aggrevates me. Take for instance my school, SMU. Once a SWC competitor and Death Penalty Loser. I think a good comparison is the Univeristy of Miami. Private schools in big cities... I think our attendence to football games is probably the same - not huge, but when we are winning, we attract big crowds.

SMU may not attract TAMU size crowds, but to say we are inferior for that reason is ridiculous. If we were in the Big12, we would have a different reality right now. And we shouldn't be looked down on by anyone for the same issues say Boston College has.

Schools potential is not always realized. Hell East Carolina was shunned for so long, yet they fill their 50,000 seat stadium every game. Doesn't make sense.

If the world was fair, and schools had equal opportunity without media and contract issues, I think the potential of many schools could be realized a little easier.

-----------------
Conclusion: the Big10 isn't inherently better because of the name 'Big10'. The money associated no doubtely helps funding, but this year the MAC was a great league. MAC schools should be proud to be in that conference. MWC schools should also. The schools that left the WAC to join the MWC or SunBelt probably didn't see much change. The WAC (this year) had a pretty solid year. In all honesty CUSA was probably the worst this year, but the majority of the CUSA schools are moving 'up' and getting a little raise with alot more exposure.

Maryland's move to the Big10 is unreal to me. They must be chasing money, but i don't know if they will really gain from this move (losing rivalries and going from one BBall conference to another). If the Big East did not lose all the schools it did, would WVU be better off in big12 than the BE?

We should all just focus on valuing our schools by our on field success and courage. Rant over

SMUFrat, that was a very-well written, thought-out post. Well done. I agree, the SEC, Big Ten, Pac 10, even the Big XII and the ACC are not the end alls, be alls. There are a lot of good athletic programs out there that do get overlooked a lot, and it's a shame that they do. Southern Miss, Troy, East Carolina, Marshall, UAB, Tulsa, UTEP, Houston, New Mexico, Hawaii, Colorado State, Fresno, Navy, Xavier, St. Joe's, Drexel- the list just goes on and on. However, I must disagree with you on Maryland's move. For a long time, Maryland felt like it was out of place in the ACC, and couldn't stand how the Tobacco Road dominated that conference. The Tobacco Road was to Maryland what the Texas schools in the Big XII were to Nebraska and Colorado. Change was inevitable, IMO, and the fact that the Big Ten has the CIC also helped influence Maryland's decision. The CIC is a major reason a school like Texas would even consider joining the Big Ten at all, IMO. It would be good if we saw a lot more organizations like the CIC crop up to help out other, smaller schools so that they can give their students more options in their educations, IMO, but I guess creed and petty bickering prevents that from happening which is a real tragedy.

As a fan of Maryland I feel I need to respond to this. Maryland going to the B1G is a money grab...to start. They absolutely had to do something. They are in dire straights financially. They had cut 7 sports. This has to do with some former administration. The new administration is trying to do the best it can to solve those issues. So yes, short term it is a money grab. Over the longer term they will still reap the benefits of more money plus being part of the CIC along with other prestigious institutions. You talk about rivalries, who are Maryland's rivals? Virginia? They have Virginia Tech. Duke? Have you heard the "Not our rivals chants"? UNC will ALWAYS be the one. UNC...see Duke. What about Pitt who is joining? Well, they have Penn St and WVU to play. I would have liked to try and start that but guess it wasn't meant to be. I can say we likely would have had a good "rivalry" with Syracuse. Basketball and LAX. But in the end, what does Maryland gain? Financial stability...if they aren't complete idiots and burn through the money (AGAIN). You said they are moving from one basketball conference to another. Yes, that is true. But don't fail to recognize that the new basketball conference they are joining has a heck of a lot more football tradition than the one they currently belong to. They will hopefully build some rivalries...but they may not. It may be the same that it is just like the ACC. It will take time to find out. So we play the waiting game.

Wow, the "Im pissed that my school isnt in a Power League even though I think they should be so let's burn down the system which hopefully will put my school in a better place" Manifesto all spelled out beautifully.

Well done sir +2 for you!

Go Cocks

Every conference doesn’t want the same thing, that’s a given. But money and prestige are at the top and the lower level conferences simply are so low on the food chain it’s laughable but at the same time sad. (1) I read an economic study commissioned by Texas A&M before the move and the positive financial impact of joining the SEC was absolutely staggering (2) Boise would still be in the no name conference had it held together with Louisville and Rutgers, REGARDLESS of region…why? MONEY and prestige (3) Competition? Duh! Anytime you can upgrade for better competition and conference you almost ALWAYS make the move and guess what else you get more of? MONEY (4) Market growth is important for a school like SMU and looking East is smart, especially for a PRIVATE SCHOOL (5) There is only one Army, Air Force, and Navy….these schools have different missions than any other in all of college sports so it’s kind of near sighted to use a service academy as an example….these three want to be competitive based on the type of kids they recruit. Army could join the SEC tomorrow and it WOULD HAVE ZERO IMPACT on recruiting for them, they not only have to find the best and brightest but then have to sell kids on a MILITARY COMMITMENT and with Army one that could very well end in loss of life. Memphis could join the SEC tomorrow and recruiting would change overnight. So like probably 95% of all school would make a move to an upgrade in conference in regards for competition…..ARMY, AIR FORCE and NAVY are exceptions the latter two can compete a nice level but even so they are still limited because of recruiting and Army is far more limited.


What you need to understand is the SEC dominance started with the creation of the BCS….AFTER some of the influence was taken away from the Northeast and Midwest sports writers and polls. There has long been a bias against the South for obvious reasons and rightly so on many fronts but the New South is nothing like the Old South, not to mention the huge population shifts are in the South, that in combination with the SEC planting a flag in the state of Texas was an absolute devastating blow to the rest of college FB as far as long term ( I would take a recruiting base for my conference anchored by Texas, Florida and Georgia over any combination of any area of this entire country and would bet so would any coach) Once upon a time the SEC was a run of the mill conference huh? Please explain what time that was…..I’m 46 years old and the SEC has NEVER been a run of the mill conference during my lifetime. Let me try to explain the BCS of the last 15 seasons…..15 seasons is a large sample and accurate one especially when things are decided on the field and not by sports writes and the final polls LIKE THE OLD ANCIENT DAYS. This is 2013 not 1943 or 1983 for that matter.

The SEC has a total of FIVE let me Repeat that FIVE different team that have won BCS National Championships (Alabama, Florida, LSU, Tennessee, and Auburn) the next closest in that regard ins the Big 12 with Texas and Oklahoma as the only two, followed by with one each the ACC, Big East, Big 1, and Pac 12.

The SEC is 9 and 0 (National Championships in 15 years is just staggering) one season two SEC played in the BIG GAME...if you just stop for a minute and thing about that its actually amazing when considering The Big12, Big10, Pac12 just didn’t even have anybody (as a group) good enough for that game, OKSt was close but they would have faced the same fate as the best scoring team in the history of college FB, Remember that team? That's the Oklahoma team that got held to a grand total of 14 points against Florida in the National Championship game.
The Big 12 is 2 and 5
The Big 10 is 1 and 2
The total averages for all nine BCS Championship games, the SEC 29.8 points per games the others 15.1 points per game
The Flagships of all the other power conferences as well as Notre Dame have had a shot to knock the SEC off its perch…who has had a chance a lost when the lights were the brightest and the stage the grandest? Florida St, Oklahoma x2, Ohio St X2, Texas, Oregon, and Notre Dame.

In fairness I guess I should say as a collective group of Big10/Pac12/ACC/BigEast have 6 BCS championships COMBINED but on the other hand the SEC has 9 all by themselves as a stand alone conference. Only three teams in all of college FB have more than one BCS Championship and all three belong to the SEC (Alabama as three). Tennessee and Auburn have just as many (ONE) as Flagship heavy weights Ohio St, Texas, USC, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame.


Washington St, North Western, Indiana, Wake Forest and the like do not deserve more and are not better programs than ay a UCF or USF (not in my opinion anyway)…..but, I assume most are all Charter members of the conferences they belong to and have the GREAT FORTUNE of being historically associated with the likes of Ohio St, Michigan, USC, UCLA and in the SEC the likes of Alabama, Florida, and the rest……earth to whoever!!!!! You don’t kick a charter member out just because they aren’t that good, doesn’t work that way. So really it doesn’t matter if USF or whoever is better what matters (as far as this particular point) is being a charter member of a power conference. As far as Tulsa goes, from my understanding they are the smallest school in the entire FBS so not sure what the point is with Tulsa.



I’ve watched SMU several times over thee last two seasons on Fox sports and I can promise anyone here that every single game looked like it was being played in or close to a half empty stadium and it was ot a very big stadium to begin with, I have no idea what official attendance figures are but I know what I saw. That doesn’t mean SMU or whoever doesn’t have potential and I’m not saying that at all. All no name conference school have a chance to upgrade and reach new heights….however, the financial gap is just mind boggling when compared to the power conferences. I think what people fail to see is that the long term implications…what I see is slowly but steadily year by year the gap is going to keep getting wider and wider, lets say for instance this school is getting 220 million in TV money over a ten year period of time and the best no name conference team over the same span gets 20 million and that’s just TV money…..TV money is a fraction of the overall budget which for some reason seems to go unnoticed. I think the SEC for instance had an average of right at 100 million in revenue for the top 10 schools….THATS RIGHT, TOP 10 AVERAGE NOT JUST 1 OR 2 SCHOOLS.... the other four averaged right at 55 million……I may be wrong about this but I think in regards to the no name conference UCONN is at the top or near the top along with Memphis, these two are about where the bottom feeders of the say the SEC and Big10 are in terms of revenue. BTW, the bottom feeders in terms of finances of the SEC and Big 10 are few...it's not like half the conference are bottom feeders in terms of revenue.

We are about to enter a MONUMENTAL TIME OF CHANGE for college sports. The power and influence at the top doesn't shrink year by year, it increases especially with this new model. The other thing people need to be thinking about is....can my school afford to pay athletes (whatever that sum ends up being) in addition to the scholarship. This is going to be one of the major parts of the separation of haves and have nots once this ultimately gets implemented......every school cannot afford this expense , not to mention it's going to impact recruiting in a major way.





Conclusion: the no name conference is FOREVER going to considered Mid Major as long as it exists. Their may potentially over the next two to five years be a few spots left to get into one of the Power Leagues but only a handful of teams are worthy of consideration. The Mac, CUSA, MWC, and No Name Conference can all have unbelievable season for the next 10 years but guess what? The train has left the station and it won’t matter one way of the other except for the hard core and homer fans. This is all about TV, Conferences Prestige, and having the resources to compete YEAR IN YEAR OUT LONG TERM as conferences, headlined by a few Flagships at the top of each Conference. The No Name Conference number one goal is to be the best non power league and right now as we speak they are behind the MWC, but not by much.

(03-27-2013 09:20 PM)Terps_N_Phoenix Wrote:  As a fan of Maryland I feel I need to respond to this. Maryland going to the B1G is a money grab...to start. They absolutely had to do something. They are in dire straights financially. They had cut 7 sports. This has to do with some former administration. The new administration is trying to do the best it can to solve those issues. So yes, short term it is a money grab. Over the longer term they will still reap the benefits of more money plus being part of the CIC along with other prestigious institutions. You talk about rivalries, who are Maryland's rivals? Virginia? They have Virginia Tech. Duke? Have you heard the "Not our rivals chants"? UNC will ALWAYS be the one. UNC...see Duke. What about Pitt who is joining? Well, they have Penn St and WVU to play. I would have liked to try and start that but guess it wasn't meant to be. I can say we likely would have had a good "rivalry" with Syracuse. Basketball and LAX. But in the end, what does Maryland gain? Financial stability...if they aren't complete idiots and burn through the money (AGAIN). You said they are moving from one basketball conference to another. Yes, that is true. But don't fail to recognize that the new basketball conference they are joining has a heck of a lot more football tradition than the one they currently belong to. They will hopefully build some rivalries...but they may not. It may be the same that it is just like the ACC. It will take time to find out. So we play the waiting game.

Maryland has one mutual primary rivalry: Hopkins in lax.

That's it, and moving to the B1G doesn't change that.

(03-27-2013 09:20 PM)Terps_N_Phoenix Wrote:  As a fan of Maryland I feel I need to respond to this. Maryland going to the B1G is a money grab...to start. They absolutely had to do something. They are in dire straights financially. They had cut 7 sports. This has to do with some former administration. The new administration is trying to do the best it can to solve those issues. So yes, short term it is a money grab. Over the longer term they will still reap the benefits of more money plus being part of the CIC along with other prestigious institutions. You talk about rivalries, who are Maryland's rivals? Virginia? They have Virginia Tech. Duke? Have you heard the "Not our rivals chants"? UNC will ALWAYS be the one. UNC...see Duke. What about Pitt who is joining? Well, they have Penn St and WVU to play. I would have liked to try and start that but guess it wasn't meant to be. I can say we likely would have had a good "rivalry" with Syracuse. Basketball and LAX. But in the end, what does Maryland gain? Financial stability...if they aren't complete idiots and burn through the money (AGAIN). You said they are moving from one basketball conference to another. Yes, that is true. But don't fail to recognize that the new basketball conference they are joining has a heck of a lot more football tradition than the one they currently belong to. They will hopefully build some rivalries...but they may not. It may be the same that it is just like the ACC. It will take time to find out. So we play the waiting game.

Great post. Also, Maryland stands to develop an actual rivalry with Rutgers. That one seems ready made: proximate states, schools themselves have many students from each other's states, etc. It resumes a dormant rivalry of sorts with Penn State too.

I find it funny that when Maryland moves, its apparently the end of the world for some folks...but it meant nothing to ACC fans that 5 schools moved to their conference from another previously.

Even after the financial considerations, Maryland is smart to align itself with Penn State and Rutgers in a conference, those three should have been in a conference together previously, IMO.