(05-29-2013 01:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Looking at it as conference loyalty is a little inaccurate.

Schools want to be in peer groups with like minded goals.

Some like the B1G started off with a bunch of similar schools (mostly big state research oriented Flagships) that stayed together because of it. Others like the SWC initially worked out but later became a divide between big state flagship schools, smaller state universities and even smaller private schools whose goals and missions were very different and (in many cases) incompatible.

Ultimately, everyone wants to be with the group of schools they consider to be their athletic, academic and cultural peers and are very willing to leave behind a group they no longer consider their peers if the opportunity presented itself.

Spot on and well said. I think "perfect" conferences that would inspire generational loyalty can only be found in peers joining with peers, and because of geographical/cultural/financial/academic constraints, those conferences need to be in the 8-12 member range. Athletic success is cyclical, and even joining with an ideal peer may not seem wise 50 years down the road. The old Pacific Coast Conference is a good example. It was basically the original PAC members plus Idaho and Montana. Did these schools go different directions because of the change in conference or did the conference leave them because the change already occurred? I don't know, but it just shows that schools are always changing, so their conferences need to do the same.

As some of you have alluded to in earlier posts, I wish conference membership was flexible enough to allow peers to get together easily without everyone getting their feathers ruffled. If everybody can erase their memory banks and look at schools objectively, take a glance at the western schools. Why the heck is Washington State not in the same conference as Idaho, Montana, Montana State, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon State, Utah State, and Colorado State? They are all national universities in the 120's to 200 ranking range, have student bodies in the 10,000 to 20,000 range, and have revenues in the $20 mil to $30 mil range if you exclude the windfall PAC TV money that Washington State and Oregon State receive off the backs of the other PAC schools. Not to mention the cultural and regional sense of it all.

When you look at Arizona State, do you not think about potential rivalries against Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, San Diego State, UNLV, and New Mexico? On paper, they are similarly well-suited. I left out Boise State and Fresno State because they are regional universities. Would the opportunity to join either of these conferences prompt them to improve their academic profile? Maybe, maybe not, and probably either of these conferences outlined above pick them up because they are too valuable to pass by, but at least they could start emulating their conference profile and become a better place for their students. On paper, both schools should be with San Jose State, Cal State - Sacramento, Eastern Washington, Portland State, Northern Arizona, and Weber State. That is fine, and those regional schools serve their state's purposes, but maybe Boise State uses athletics to become something more academically.

I could easily do this same exercise for the midwest, eastern, and southern schools, but I have ranted long enough. Perhaps I am too much of a realist, but I would think that most people want to be with peers and improve together rather than try to be a square peg into a round hole of hodge-podge affiliations.

(05-29-2013 02:46 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  As some of you have alluded to in earlier posts, I wish conference membership was flexible enough to allow peers to get together easily without everyone getting their feathers ruffled. If everybody can erase their memory banks and look at schools objectively, take a glance at the western schools. Why the heck is Washington State not in the same conference as Idaho, Montana, Montana State, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon State, Utah State, and Colorado State? They are all national universities in the 120's to 200 ranking range, have student bodies in the 10,000 to 20,000 range, and have revenues in the $20 mil to $30 mil range if you exclude the windfall PAC TV money that Washington State and Oregon State receive off the backs of the other PAC schools. Not to mention the cultural and regional sense of it all.

When you look at Arizona State, do you not think about potential rivalries against Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, San Diego State, UNLV, and New Mexico? On paper, they are similarly well-suited. I left out Boise State and Fresno State because they are regional universities. Would the opportunity to join either of these conferences prompt them to improve their academic profile? Maybe, maybe not, and probably either of these conferences outlined above pick them up because they are too valuable to pass by, but at least they could start emulating their conference profile and become a better place for their students. On paper, both schools should be with San Jose State, Cal State - Sacramento, Eastern Washington, Portland State, Northern Arizona, and Weber State. That is fine, and those regional schools serve their state's purposes, but maybe Boise State uses athletics to become something more academically.

I could easily do this same exercise for the midwest, eastern, and southern schools, but I have ranted long enough. Perhaps I am too much of a realist, but I would think that most people want to be with peers and improve together rather than try to be a square peg into a round hole of hodge-podge affiliations.

There's a big difference between "wanting to be with peers" and willingly downgrading conferences (whether it's in terms of perception or money). A school like Washington State *wants* to be peers with Washington, Berkeley and UCLA even if it's profile is closer to Idaho's (which I'd quibble with). There's no way to avoid "ruffling feathers" if you try to tell Washington State anything to the contrary.

Besides, the Pac-12, Big Ten and SEC aren't really hodge-podges at all in terms of their institutional profiles. They all fit in well with each other academically, geographically and culturally for the most part. The ACC isn't really a hodge-podge, either, except that adding Louisville was a departure from their prior academic requirements. (To be clear, I'm not saying that it was the wrong move. If the football-oriented schools of the ACC were going to continue rattling sabres, then they ultimately had to choose Louisville.) The only true hodge-podge power conference is the Big 12 - there's a massive gap academically top-to-bottom and the geography is now out of whack with WVU as a member. Of course, it doesn't matter as long as the league has Texas and Oklahoma.

(05-29-2013 04:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 02:46 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  As some of you have alluded to in earlier posts, I wish conference membership was flexible enough to allow peers to get together easily without everyone getting their feathers ruffled. If everybody can erase their memory banks and look at schools objectively, take a glance at the western schools. Why the heck is Washington State not in the same conference as Idaho, Montana, Montana State, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon State, Utah State, and Colorado State? They are all national universities in the 120's to 200 ranking range, have student bodies in the 10,000 to 20,000 range, and have revenues in the $20 mil to $30 mil range if you exclude the windfall PAC TV money that Washington State and Oregon State receive off the backs of the other PAC schools. Not to mention the cultural and regional sense of it all.

When you look at Arizona State, do you not think about potential rivalries against Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, San Diego State, UNLV, and New Mexico? On paper, they are similarly well-suited. I left out Boise State and Fresno State because they are regional universities. Would the opportunity to join either of these conferences prompt them to improve their academic profile? Maybe, maybe not, and probably either of these conferences outlined above pick them up because they are too valuable to pass by, but at least they could start emulating their conference profile and become a better place for their students. On paper, both schools should be with San Jose State, Cal State - Sacramento, Eastern Washington, Portland State, Northern Arizona, and Weber State. That is fine, and those regional schools serve their state's purposes, but maybe Boise State uses athletics to become something more academically.

I could easily do this same exercise for the midwest, eastern, and southern schools, but I have ranted long enough. Perhaps I am too much of a realist, but I would think that most people want to be with peers and improve together rather than try to be a square peg into a round hole of hodge-podge affiliations.

There's a big difference between "wanting to be with peers" and willingly downgrading conferences (whether it's in terms of perception or money). A school like Washington State *wants* to be peers with Washington, Berkeley and UCLA even if it's profile is closer to Idaho's (which I'd quibble with). There's no way to avoid "ruffling feathers" if you try to tell Washington State anything to the contrary.

Besides, the Pac-12, Big Ten and SEC aren't really hodge-podges at all in terms of their institutional profiles. They all fit in well with each other academically, geographically and culturally for the most part. The ACC isn't really a hodge-podge, either, except that adding Louisville was a departure from their prior academic requirements. (To be clear, I'm not saying that it was the wrong move. If the football-oriented schools of the ACC were going to continue rattling sabres, then they ultimately had to choose Louisville.) The only true hodge-podge power conference is the Big 12 - there's a massive gap academically top-to-bottom and the geography is now out of whack with WVU as a member. Of course, it doesn't matter as long as the league has Texas and Oklahoma.

Like he said.......

"If everybody can erase their memory banks and look at schools objectively...."

This basically takes forgetting everything we know about schools academically/athletically to date and grouping true institutional peers together.

I'd also disagree and say that the ACC is quite a hodge podge, but not to the same level as the AAC. The ACC is a weird blend IMO of North/South, Public/Private, Rural/City, football/basketball..... the only common bond is high "academic standards" except in the case of UL and UNC .

I have to agree. The cable market has taken over and they completely control college football. I am tired of conference realignment rumors that are now occurring every season.

(05-29-2013 05:21 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 04:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 02:46 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  As some of you have alluded to in earlier posts, I wish conference membership was flexible enough to allow peers to get together easily without everyone getting their feathers ruffled. If everybody can erase their memory banks and look at schools objectively, take a glance at the western schools. Why the heck is Washington State not in the same conference as Idaho, Montana, Montana State, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon State, Utah State, and Colorado State? They are all national universities in the 120's to 200 ranking range, have student bodies in the 10,000 to 20,000 range, and have revenues in the $20 mil to $30 mil range if you exclude the windfall PAC TV money that Washington State and Oregon State receive off the backs of the other PAC schools. Not to mention the cultural and regional sense of it all.

When you look at Arizona State, do you not think about potential rivalries against Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, San Diego State, UNLV, and New Mexico? On paper, they are similarly well-suited. I left out Boise State and Fresno State because they are regional universities. Would the opportunity to join either of these conferences prompt them to improve their academic profile? Maybe, maybe not, and probably either of these conferences outlined above pick them up because they are too valuable to pass by, but at least they could start emulating their conference profile and become a better place for their students. On paper, both schools should be with San Jose State, Cal State - Sacramento, Eastern Washington, Portland State, Northern Arizona, and Weber State. That is fine, and those regional schools serve their state's purposes, but maybe Boise State uses athletics to become something more academically.

I could easily do this same exercise for the midwest, eastern, and southern schools, but I have ranted long enough. Perhaps I am too much of a realist, but I would think that most people want to be with peers and improve together rather than try to be a square peg into a round hole of hodge-podge affiliations.

There's a big difference between "wanting to be with peers" and willingly downgrading conferences (whether it's in terms of perception or money). A school like Washington State *wants* to be peers with Washington, Berkeley and UCLA even if it's profile is closer to Idaho's (which I'd quibble with). There's no way to avoid "ruffling feathers" if you try to tell Washington State anything to the contrary.

Besides, the Pac-12, Big Ten and SEC aren't really hodge-podges at all in terms of their institutional profiles. They all fit in well with each other academically, geographically and culturally for the most part. The ACC isn't really a hodge-podge, either, except that adding Louisville was a departure from their prior academic requirements. (To be clear, I'm not saying that it was the wrong move. If the football-oriented schools of the ACC were going to continue rattling sabres, then they ultimately had to choose Louisville.) The only true hodge-podge power conference is the Big 12 - there's a massive gap academically top-to-bottom and the geography is now out of whack with WVU as a member. Of course, it doesn't matter as long as the league has Texas and Oklahoma.

Like he said.......

"If everybody can erase their memory banks and look at schools objectively...."

This basically takes forgetting everything we know about schools academically/athletically to date and grouping true institutional peers together.

I'd also disagree and say that the ACC is quite a hodge podge, but not to the same level as the AAC. The ACC is a weird blend IMO of North/South, Public/Private, Rural/City, football/basketball..... the only common bond is high "academic standards" except in the case of UL and UNC .

Well unlike the west coast, the mid-west or the deep south, thats the Atlantic Coast. It has the urban, suburban and rural. FB big in some areas while BBall reigns in others. If you want to own the whole east coast you're going to run into many different people.

(05-29-2013 01:34 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 01:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Looking at it as loyalty is a little inaccurate.

Schools want to be in peer groups with like minded goals.

Some like the B1G started off with a bunch of similar schools (mostly big state research oriented Flagships) that stayed together because of it. Others like the SWC initially worked out but later became a divide between big state flagship schools, smaller state universities and even smaller private schools whose goals and missions were very different and (in many cases) incompatible.

Ultimately, everyone wants to be with the group of schools they consider to be their athletic, academic and cultural peers and are very willing to leave behind a group they no longer consider their peers if the opportunity presented itself.

It will be interesting to see if the ACC can stay together long term:

Public vs Private
Some Flagships vs Secondary Flagships
North vs South vs Border State
Football First vs Basketball First

If there should be no ACC Network that might become the fuse. The information on YES buying some tier 3 games from likely Raycom makes me question just how that Network could be formed in any near future effort. So when you think about the variants that you mentioned Mark and realize that the GOR was essentially signed in some schools minds with the Network as a promise to help them keep pace, should that not materialize I think the heat flares back up.

I don't know if there is any truth to what I'm about to mention, but there is a rumor to the effect that all 15 schools agreed to the GOR but only 11 signed and that 4 schools withheld their signature pending confirmation of said Network. Now if there is any truth to that rumor I think we will find out shortly because today's news seems to preclude that the network will be forthcoming in the near future.

(05-29-2013 04:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 02:46 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  As some of you have alluded to in earlier posts, I wish conference membership was flexible enough to allow peers to get together easily without everyone getting their feathers ruffled. If everybody can erase their memory banks and look at schools objectively, take a glance at the western schools. Why the heck is Washington State not in the same conference as Idaho, Montana, Montana State, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon State, Utah State, and Colorado State? They are all national universities in the 120's to 200 ranking range, have student bodies in the 10,000 to 20,000 range, and have revenues in the $20 mil to $30 mil range if you exclude the windfall PAC TV money that Washington State and Oregon State receive off the backs of the other PAC schools. Not to mention the cultural and regional sense of it all.

When you look at Arizona State, do you not think about potential rivalries against Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, San Diego State, UNLV, and New Mexico? On paper, they are similarly well-suited. I left out Boise State and Fresno State because they are regional universities. Would the opportunity to join either of these conferences prompt them to improve their academic profile? Maybe, maybe not, and probably either of these conferences outlined above pick them up because they are too valuable to pass by, but at least they could start emulating their conference profile and become a better place for their students. On paper, both schools should be with San Jose State, Cal State - Sacramento, Eastern Washington, Portland State, Northern Arizona, and Weber State. That is fine, and those regional schools serve their state's purposes, but maybe Boise State uses athletics to become something more academically.

I could easily do this same exercise for the midwest, eastern, and southern schools, but I have ranted long enough. Perhaps I am too much of a realist, but I would think that most people want to be with peers and improve together rather than try to be a square peg into a round hole of hodge-podge affiliations.

There's a big difference between "wanting to be with peers" and willingly downgrading conferences (whether it's in terms of perception or money). A school like Washington State *wants* to be peers with Washington, Berkeley and UCLA even if it's profile is closer to Idaho's (which I'd quibble with). There's no way to avoid "ruffling feathers" if you try to tell Washington State anything to the contrary.

Besides, the Pac-12, Big Ten and SEC aren't really hodge-podges at all in terms of their institutional profiles. They all fit in well with each other academically, geographically and culturally for the most part. The ACC isn't really a hodge-podge, either, except that adding Louisville was a departure from their prior academic requirements. (To be clear, I'm not saying that it was the wrong move. If the football-oriented schools of the ACC were going to continue rattling sabres, then they ultimately had to choose Louisville.) The only true hodge-podge power conference is the Big 12 - there's a massive gap academically top-to-bottom and the geography is now out of whack with WVU as a member. Of course, it doesn't matter as long as the league has Texas and Oklahoma.

The SEC used to be like schools. But the schools have changed and grown. UGA/UF/UMo/A&M are pretty similar. Arkansas, Ole Miss and MS St. are pretty similar. TN/AL/AU/UK/SC are pretty similar. But those 3 groups aren't similar to each other.

ACC is a hodge-podge. Clemson, NCSU, FSU, VT are different from Duke, UVA, UNC, GT.

WSU, OR, OR ST. really aren't like Cal and Berkeley.

Only the Big 10 of the Big 5 really has very similar schools.

(07-11-2013 04:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 01:34 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 01:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Looking at it as loyalty is a little inaccurate.

Schools want to be in peer groups with like minded goals.

Some like the B1G started off with a bunch of similar schools (mostly big state research oriented Flagships) that stayed together because of it. Others like the SWC initially worked out but later became a divide between big state flagship schools, smaller state universities and even smaller private schools whose goals and missions were very different and (in many cases) incompatible.

Ultimately, everyone wants to be with the group of schools they consider to be their athletic, academic and cultural peers and are very willing to leave behind a group they no longer consider their peers if the opportunity presented itself.

It will be interesting to see if the ACC can stay together long term:

Public vs Private
Some Flagships vs Secondary Flagships
North vs South vs Border State
Football First vs Basketball First

If there should be no ACC Network that might become the fuse. The information on YES buying some tier 3 games from likely Raycom makes me question just how that Network could be formed in any near future effort. So when you think about the variants that you mentioned Mark and realize that the GOR was essentially signed in some schools minds with the Network as a promise to help them keep pace, should that not materialize I think the heat flares back up.

I don't know if there is any truth to what I'm about to mention, but there is a rumor to the effect that all 15 schools agreed to the GOR but only 11 signed and that 4 schools withheld their signature pending confirmation of said Network. Now if there is any truth to that rumor I think we will find out shortly because today's news seems to preclude that the network will be forthcoming in the near future.

I doubt that since a GoR only works if EVERYONE signs. It's not a GoR if only a few do.

Conference change has been going on for decades, but not at this rate of speed of recent years.
Thank Roy Kramer, & the AQ element of the BCS system, aided by ESPN, to really screw up college football conferences.

(07-11-2013 05:18 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(07-11-2013 04:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 01:34 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 01:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Looking at it as loyalty is a little inaccurate.

Schools want to be in peer groups with like minded goals.

Some like the B1G started off with a bunch of similar schools (mostly big state research oriented Flagships) that stayed together because of it. Others like the SWC initially worked out but later became a divide between big state flagship schools, smaller state universities and even smaller private schools whose goals and missions were very different and (in many cases) incompatible.

Ultimately, everyone wants to be with the group of schools they consider to be their athletic, academic and cultural peers and are very willing to leave behind a group they no longer consider their peers if the opportunity presented itself.

It will be interesting to see if the ACC can stay together long term:

Public vs Private
Some Flagships vs Secondary Flagships
North vs South vs Border State
Football First vs Basketball First

If there should be no ACC Network that might become the fuse. The information on YES buying some tier 3 games from likely Raycom makes me question just how that Network could be formed in any near future effort. So when you think about the variants that you mentioned Mark and realize that the GOR was essentially signed in some schools minds with the Network as a promise to help them keep pace, should that not materialize I think the heat flares back up.

I don't know if there is any truth to what I'm about to mention, but there is a rumor to the effect that all 15 schools agreed to the GOR but only 11 signed and that 4 schools withheld their signature pending confirmation of said Network. Now if there is any truth to that rumor I think we will find out shortly because today's news seems to preclude that the network will be forthcoming in the near future.

I doubt that since a GoR only works if EVERYONE signs. It's not a GoR if only a few do.

Exactly my point. Has there been confirmation of all actually signing, or just that they have all "agreed" to a grant of rights? I really don't think the ACC is in any jeopardy, but the issue is germane in light of the situation with brokered 3rd tier property even if they say they need until 2016 to get their ducks in a row. I'm really just asking if there is indisputable confirmation that all 15 have indeed signed and not just agreed to the GOR? And I'm also asking if there has been confirmation that a network is indeed forthcoming or is just a possibility?

As Barney Fife would say, "It's time to nip it, nip it in the bud."

OP. I wouldn't worry about it too much. Looks like there's not going to be any more major re-alignment until the Big 12 GoR is up and the LHN expires. So that's 10-13 years of peace.

(05-28-2013 04:36 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Whatever happened to the days of conference loyalty? IMO, this is what built conferences like the SEC, Pac 12, the Big Ten, and even the ACC to a degree, and yet, that is not the trend at all. The trend is to stay in your current conference for about 4 years, jump to a more "prestigious" conference stay in that one for about 4 more years, and then jump again to that conference you've always dreamed of joining. I hate that trend with a passion!!! Why don't schools find the conferences they want to join and then just join those conferences and stick with them for the long haul, rather than getting a case of TCU-itis??!!! Why?? It's like we might as well not even have rivalries at all, because nobody knows who's staying and who's leaving. I can understand why some schools deserted their conferences and some of it is justified. Nebraska never really felt like it fit in its conference so it left. Texas A&M pretty much the same story (Even Memphis could fit in here). Both schools gave the Big 12 adequate opportunities to retain them, and the Big 12 failed miserably both times, IMO. Colorado felt that the Big XII was going to implode, so they started looking around, out of fear, and the same could be said for WVU and the Big East. It's schools like TCU and Maryland (Maryland's admin, not all the Terp fans, because some wanted to stay in the ACC) that this is at aimed at, plus those people openly advocating the concept of "feeder" conferences to get schools from FCS. I just want to see more non AQ conferences be like the SEC and continue to be a real threat to bust the AQ party. But instead, it seems like all of non-AQ teams are looking to join AQ conferences rather than try to elevate their own non-AQ conference. And I just don't like it at all.

This raiding of conferences was actually started in the current expansion era by the SEC in 1991 who apparently didn't think that loyalty to other conferences was all that important as long a member was leaving to join the SEC.

SEC - Established by a group of schools breaking away from the Southern Conference in 1932.
- Sewanee left in 1940
- Georgia Tech left in 1964
- Tulane left in 1966
- South Carolina, former ACC member, joined in 1991
- Arkansas was stolen from the Southwest Conference in 1991
- Texas A&M and Missouri were stolen from the Big XII in 2012

Pac 12 - Established as the Pacific Coast Conference in 1915. Fragmented in 1959 and regrouped in 1964 as the Pacific 8.

- Montana left in 1929
- Idaho left in 1959, never to return
- Wahington St left in 1959 and returned in 1963
- Oregon & Oregon St left in 1959 and returned in 1964
- Arizona & Arizona St were stolen from the WAC in 1978
- Colorado was stolen from the Big XII in 2011
- Utah was stolen from the Mountain West in 2011

ACC - Established by a group of schools breaking away from the southern conference in 1953.

- South Carolina left in 1971
- Georgia Tech, former SEC member, was added in 1979
- Miami & VA Tech were stolen from the Big East in 2004
- BC was stolen from the Big East in 2005

Does all of that look like a history of conference loyalty within the conferences you mentioned? The Big Ten is the only one among that group with a history of stability and without a history of raiding other conferences prior to the present expansion period.

I have not listed conference additions who have not yet begun competing with their new conferences.