(09-18-2019 06:16 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:46 AM)YNot Wrote:  Idaho. You can argue that they are a great fit for the Big Sky...but they downgraded to FCS...it doesn't get any worse than that.

Idaho is a huge winner, as they are no longer paying the higher costs of FBS football.

Their finances are worse than they were before though.

Not only has Idaho lost their place in an FBS conference (and then FBS altogether), but they've also lost their biggest rivalry game and are steadily sliding towards losing top status in their own state.

(09-18-2019 08:22 PM)stever20 Wrote:  if we expand this to go to conferences....

I think 3 stand out....
WAC obviously
MWC
MVC

WAC don't think anything needs to be said.

MWC loses BYU, TCU, and Utah. Does pick up Boise- but from where they were to now- wow.

MVC loses Creighton and Wichita. Pickups Loyola and Valparaiso. Really big drop off, even with the miracle final 4 run.

A10 I think is more neutral than you would think. Yes lose 2 great programs in Temple, Xavier- but did pick up VCU along with Davidson.

And yeah, BE/AAC if you consider that as 1 fluid conference for the AAC would have to be included as well obviously....

Sort of agree on the MWC. I'll also add that I think they really made a mistake by adding so many former WAC schools so quickly. Probably should have stopped short of adding Utah St and San Jose St and stayed at 10.

I suppose part of the reason was wanting to kill off the WAC, but that was probably unnecessary.

(09-19-2019 07:57 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 08:22 PM)stever20 Wrote:  if we expand this to go to conferences....

I think 3 stand out....
WAC obviously
MWC
MVC

WAC don't think anything needs to be said.

MWC loses BYU, TCU, and Utah. Does pick up Boise- but from where they were to now- wow.

MVC loses Creighton and Wichita. Pickups Loyola and Valparaiso. Really big drop off, even with the miracle final 4 run.

A10 I think is more neutral than you would think. Yes lose 2 great programs in Temple, Xavier- but did pick up VCU along with Davidson.

And yeah, BE/AAC if you consider that as 1 fluid conference for the AAC would have to be included as well obviously....

Sort of agree on the MWC. I'll also add that I think they really made a mistake by adding so many former WAC schools so quickly. Probably should have stopped short of adding Utah St and San Jose St and stayed at 10.

but had to with the conference championship game requirements at the time....

Amazing how if the rule that's in place now was in place start of decade- how different things would be right now.

(09-18-2019 06:07 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Rutgers football. Basically impossible for them to win the Big 10 in its current set up.

We'll take the impossible to win football, but thank you. Frankly, I dare say ALL Rutgers fans recognize that we came out as the biggest winners. I mean $1B Powerball winners. Yes football is probably in an impossible situation. But the money and prestige of being affiliated with all these top teir public universities more that makes up for the pain of 12 weeks of ass-woopings. Besides, we have finally begun to invest in facilities and are seeing some signs of life in the Olympic sports. So we have THAT going for us.

everyone wants to talk about the UConn/Cincy/etc.

but what if we limit this to just the ones who are in the P5 now. Who of those is the biggest loser?

I'd probably say for myself, it's West Virginia.

(09-19-2019 07:59 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-19-2019 07:57 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 08:22 PM)stever20 Wrote:  if we expand this to go to conferences....

I think 3 stand out....
WAC obviously
MWC
MVC

WAC don't think anything needs to be said.

MWC loses BYU, TCU, and Utah. Does pick up Boise- but from where they were to now- wow.

MVC loses Creighton and Wichita. Pickups Loyola and Valparaiso. Really big drop off, even with the miracle final 4 run.

A10 I think is more neutral than you would think. Yes lose 2 great programs in Temple, Xavier- but did pick up VCU along with Davidson.

And yeah, BE/AAC if you consider that as 1 fluid conference for the AAC would have to be included as well obviously....

Sort of agree on the MWC. I'll also add that I think they really made a mistake by adding so many former WAC schools so quickly. Probably should have stopped short of adding Utah St and San Jose St and stayed at 10.

but had to with the conference championship game requirements at the time....

Amazing how if the rule that's in place now was in place start of decade- how different things would be right now.

You're right. No way they would do it now.

(09-19-2019 08:07 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(09-19-2019 07:59 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-19-2019 07:57 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 08:22 PM)stever20 Wrote:  if we expand this to go to conferences....

I think 3 stand out....
WAC obviously
MWC
MVC

WAC don't think anything needs to be said.

MWC loses BYU, TCU, and Utah. Does pick up Boise- but from where they were to now- wow.

MVC loses Creighton and Wichita. Pickups Loyola and Valparaiso. Really big drop off, even with the miracle final 4 run.

A10 I think is more neutral than you would think. Yes lose 2 great programs in Temple, Xavier- but did pick up VCU along with Davidson.

And yeah, BE/AAC if you consider that as 1 fluid conference for the AAC would have to be included as well obviously....

Sort of agree on the MWC. I'll also add that I think they really made a mistake by adding so many former WAC schools so quickly. Probably should have stopped short of adding Utah St and San Jose St and stayed at 10.

but had to with the conference championship game requirements at the time....

Amazing how if the rule that's in place now was in place start of decade- how different things would be right now.

You're right. No way they would do it now.

yep. And just think how different the AAC/CUSA/SBC conferences would look with that now..... Does the AAC pick up Tulane and East Carolina? And then all the dominoes that fell thru that. Totally a different looking landscape IMO.

(09-18-2019 10:31 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:14 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Carolina's cheating applies to athletes, not normal students. That might sound like a difference without a distinction, but it's not. Admissions are a big issue for UVa, Duke, GT, and WF, and was an issue for MD.

you actually have this backwards

the "official findings" were that the cheating at UNC involved more than just athletes and was open to all of the student body

that is why the NCAA stated they would take no actions and why the accreditation board took the weak action of giving them double secret probation

of course most involved were athletes, but UNC conveniently let some regular students in on the cheating as well most likely because they knew that would stop down the NCAA and because they know that accreditation boards never do anything of consequence

which really makes their cheating that much worse in reality because it was clearly planned out to get away with even if caught 100% red handed (as they did get away with it)

This isn't exactly correct, what had happened was that athletes were systematically given grades higher than were warranted on a subjectively graded item (basically, a term paper) to keep them eligible in what was otherwise a real course for non-athletes. Joe UNCstudent was writing a comprehensive academic paper to earn their grade while linebackers and point guards were handing in a page and a half double spaced with inflated margins and getting A's for the semester. Because the class was open to the whole student body it was judged by the NCAA to not be a special benefit, while UNC successfully argued that the de facto two-tiered grading system was a question of academic rigor that the NCAA didn't have oversight on. Regular students weren't let in on the actual grade inflation.

What was (highly likely) left unsaid was that if UNC got any meaningful punishment then they would have sued to force the NCAA to approve and enforce the syllabus and grading criteria of every athletes' course load annually across all member schools, and the NCAA blinked. It was absolutely academic fraud, but it was structured in a way the NCAA didn't want to touch.

Argument could also be made for Nebraska. They lose Big 8 associations with Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, et al, while losing recruiting exposure in Texas. They were supposed to be a power in the B1G West, but their transition has taken longer than expected. Basketball is better though, so there's that.

^^ I can think of 50+ million reasons why Nebraska and Rutgers are not the biggest loser.

(09-18-2019 10:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 07:19 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Ranking the losers one, two and thrice
Realignment — a roll of the dice
UConn comes in at three
Number 2 is UC
And the biggest blow — suffered by Rice

(That's a successful A,A,B,B,A rhyme scheme yet an awkwardly metered limerick — for those who care.)

I don't know what Rice's situation was before and after realignment, but it couldn't be too much different. They were G5 before, G5 after.

Also, a school like Rice can never be called a true "loser" in athletics, because athletics just doesn't mean nearly as much to them as it does to your typical striver directional. Rice is a near-Ivy league level school with a $6 Billion endowment. It doesn't need athletics for "school spirit", boost enrollment, attract media attention, attract donors, fire up alumni, or any of the other fake reasons lesser schools give to soak their students for money losing athletics.

I was going back to the "old days" when Rice was in the SWC with many programs that are now in Power 5 leagues. Even Houston and SMU are in a much better conference than Rice. And your point goes to mine: Rice's academics, history, tradition, etc. are vastly out of whack with those of the programs in C-USA. It just seems Rice got "left behind" the last 50 years more so than any other athletic program. Anyway, that was my thinking.

One more thing, Quo. When using the fake reasons argument (and I agree with you on that in some ways), I would use the term "lesser athletic programs" and not "lesser schools." There are some very fine academic institutions in the Group of 5. I try to be diplomatic.

(09-18-2019 12:45 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 12:37 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 10:55 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  UConn followed by BYU. UConn lost all of its basketball rivals and BYU saw its arch rival Utah get elevated to power status. BYU is winless against Utah since then.

Cincinnati did more with less when they were given a seat at the big table. But they were not far removed from their C-USA days and they’re now reunited with most of them in the AAC. South Florida lost the only advantage they had over Central Florida and the Golden Knights have been to three BCS/NY6 bowls since they’ve been in the same conference.

I mean, part of that is just because Utah is really, really good.

They're 0-7 against Utah since going independent but they were 3-8 the years immediately preceding that so it's not like it's been a cataclysmic shift.

i would argue look at their scheduling since becoming indy. Their September schedules are just brutal.... Just look at this year. Utah, Tennessee, USC, and Washington.

Being in the MW wouldn't help that any, though. If they want to play those teams they'd have to do it mostly in September either way.

I guess the question for BYU is similar to a question asked almost 40 years ago...

Is BYU better off now than they were 10 years ago? You can say being Indy is better than being in the MWC- however, where 10 years ago they were pure equals to their biggest rivals, they just aren't in any fashion now. That to me makes them an absolute loser.

(09-18-2019 01:26 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 12:30 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’d have to say Temple, Cincy, UConn, and USF. Houston, SMU, and Rice were the biggest losers in 1996 and still haven’t regained what they lost.

Temple went from playing all those old eastern independents, as they had for decades, got to spend a little over a decade in a conference with them as a football affiliate, and then got jilted by a combination of Villanova not wanting them to be on an equal footing or a full member and a UConn football program coming up that made them expendable and superfluous.

Cincy probably did the most on the field to deserve P5 status. I was desperately hoping that the 8 member Big 12 would take TCU, L’ville, WVU, and Cincy. Maryland to the Big Ten would have opened an ACC slot for UConn and 7 of the 8 2005-2012 Big Rast football schools would have all had P homes.

USF (and UCF) both fit the P mold—Big state universities in big cities. If CA and TX can support 4-5 P teams then so can FL.

Temple was thrown out of the BE, because Temple demanded a vote on full membership or NO membership. It simply overplayed its hand right after the first ACC raid and a time when the BE was particularly vulnerable. True, Temple was screwed by being the lone remaining football only member, as RU WVU and VT were all granted full BE membership. True, Temple's full membership was blocked by Villanova (who didn't want TU on the same footing for basketball and Olympic sports) and USF (who had a deal with Nova that kept UCF out of the BE) and some of the other original BE members (who just went with what Nova wanted). But the issue was pushed by Temple. Had they simply sat back and waited, full membership would have come, without the drama.

I agree that Cincy probably was the biggest loser in conference realignment. If wins and loses counted for anything, then Cincy was clearly deserving of a P5 home. IMHO, the B12 really missed the boat by not inviting them and Ville when WV was invited.

According to a friend who worked in the Temple athletic department, they were kicked out because the league required Temple's president to meet with the commissioner and explain what they were doing to meet league standards. President at the time came to the meeting said they didn't meet standards and nothing they could do would ever get them to meet standards, basically daring the Big East to kick out Temple so he could kill football. Head of the Board of Trustees found out and smoothed things enough to get a departure period and eventually a new president.

(09-18-2019 02:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  (2) BYU isn't a loser, much less the biggest loser as some have argued here. Sure, in a *relative* sense, BYU fell behind its biggest rival of Utah that got into the Pac-12, so that certainly hurts and it's a huge reason why BYU will continue to be independent for branding and perception purposes instead of ever considering joining a G5 league. However, in an *absolute* sense, BYU is making more TV money and has a better schedule with more high profile opponents than it did when it was a member of the MWC. Frankly, BYU was at least able to adjust and make a viable life as an independent when it didn't have a P5 spot in a way that no other G5 school was able to do. As a result, BYU might be the only school outside of the P5 that actually has some semblance of control over its own destiny (whereas everyone else is just waiting for a miracle spot to open in the P5).

But if BYU finishes ranked 5th or worse, they may well be playing post-season in a small soccer stadium outside of Dallas rather than a NY6.

You could very easily have Utah State rated 19 and champion of the MWC playing Texas A&M in the Fiesta while a #5 BYU plays Hawaii in Hawaii.

(09-18-2019 03:52 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 03:23 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 01:46 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Idaho, NMSU, West Virginia. In that order.

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using CSNbbs mobile app

Huh? I wouldn't call them the biggest winner by any means, but they caught one of the last lifeboats to a P5 league. They lost geographic and long time rivals, but there is not a single WVU fan anywhere that would trade being in an awkward fit B12 for the AAC.

All WVU had to do to punch a ticket to the ACC was get serious about academics and fan behavior. They instead chose the frequent flyer approach. WVU has been dealt a pretty good hand all things considered. They have played it as poorly as I could imagine.

Fan behavior is on WVU.

Academics is NOT something WVU has a lot of leeway on.

They have an obligation to serve the state. West Virginia has the smallest population of any state with a P5 program. In 2017 it finished last among the states and DC in median household income.

The fast way to build your academic ranking is to be more selective. I doubt turning away more West Virginia kids is a winning political move in West Virginia.

(09-19-2019 09:17 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 02:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  (2) BYU isn't a loser, much less the biggest loser as some have argued here. Sure, in a *relative* sense, BYU fell behind its biggest rival of Utah that got into the Pac-12, so that certainly hurts and it's a huge reason why BYU will continue to be independent for branding and perception purposes instead of ever considering joining a G5 league. However, in an *absolute* sense, BYU is making more TV money and has a better schedule with more high profile opponents than it did when it was a member of the MWC. Frankly, BYU was at least able to adjust and make a viable life as an independent when it didn't have a P5 spot in a way that no other G5 school was able to do. As a result, BYU might be the only school outside of the P5 that actually has some semblance of control over its own destiny (whereas everyone else is just waiting for a miracle spot to open in the P5).

But if BYU finishes ranked 5th or worse, they may well be playing post-season in a small soccer stadium outside of Dallas rather than a NY6.

You could very easily have Utah State rated 19 and champion of the MWC playing Texas A&M in the Fiesta while a #5 BYU plays Hawaii in Hawaii.

If BYU finishes #5 they have to go to an access bowl... They'd be the top at large selection...

(09-18-2019 09:13 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  For anyone saying Rice is a victim -- no. They have more than enough money to become a college sports power, but they (wisely, I'd say) opt to invest in academics instead.

I know poor Rice. Hadn't gone to post-season in football since 1961 and now has 5 bowl appearances since joining CUSA. Men's hoops had 2 NIT in the final 20 years of SWC and 2 since. Rice baseball had two tournament appearances in SWC, made CWS seven times since leaving SWC and won it all once.

Rice has found a level of competition in line with what they wish to invest in athletics.

(09-19-2019 09:17 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-18-2019 02:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  (2) BYU isn't a loser, much less the biggest loser as some have argued here. Sure, in a *relative* sense, BYU fell behind its biggest rival of Utah that got into the Pac-12, so that certainly hurts and it's a huge reason why BYU will continue to be independent for branding and perception purposes instead of ever considering joining a G5 league. However, in an *absolute* sense, BYU is making more TV money and has a better schedule with more high profile opponents than it did when it was a member of the MWC. Frankly, BYU was at least able to adjust and make a viable life as an independent when it didn't have a P5 spot in a way that no other G5 school was able to do. As a result, BYU might be the only school outside of the P5 that actually has some semblance of control over its own destiny (whereas everyone else is just waiting for a miracle spot to open in the P5).

But if BYU finishes ranked 5th or worse, they may well be playing post-season in a small soccer stadium outside of Dallas rather than a NY6.

You could very easily have Utah State rated 19 and champion of the MWC playing Texas A&M in the Fiesta while a #5 BYU plays Hawaii in Hawaii.

That's certainly possible, but that's the trade-off: having a 1-in-60ish chance at the G5 access bowl slot versus more control, money and flexibility (including more P5 opponents) during the regular season. Even then, a BYU ranked that highly will more likely than not still get an at-large access bowl slot and they'd get to keep the entire bowl payout to themselves as an independent. When push comes to shove, the year-over-year control and revenue is going to win out over a chance at an access bowl slot that very few schools ever realistically get. (BYU didn't ever get a BCS bowl spot despite being in a then-much stronger MWC.)

UConn essentially had to make the same decision for its football program. The chance at an access bowl slot simply isn't enough of an incentive compared to the stability, revenue and branding of Big East basketball.

That's really the upshot: the G5 access bowl slot isn't a large enough reason alone to stay in a G5 conference if there's a compelling enough reason to be an independent. Even UMass reluctantly came to that conclusion - they could have joined the MAC as an all-sports member, but they weren't going to send their basketball program and other sports to the MAC just for the football program. (To be sure, UMass would join the AAC as an all-sports member in a heartbeat.)

(09-18-2019 09:26 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  ...Respectfully, I don’t really understand the comments about losing Pitt as a rival. Pitt and Cincinnati were not rivals when they were in the Big East. Pitt’s only real rivalry in the Big East was West Virginia. Some might say Syracuse as well, but I certainly wouldn’t. Pitt fans looked at Cincinnati very similarly to how they looked at USF and Louisville — as newcomers, nothing more, nothing less.

Maybe that would have turned into a rivalry over time but I suspect that Pitt fans would have always seen Cincinnati as being very similar to Temple – an annual opponent but certainly not rival.

I know that’s probably not fair to Cincinnati which was really more successful in the Big East than Pitt was. However, the honest truth is none of that matters.

I think what Cincinnati fans need to understand is that Pitt fans (and Syracuse and West Virginia fans, for example) were so pissed off that we had lost Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College — long-standing opponents/rivals — that we would have never seen any of them in the same light....

Gee, I never knew that Pitt fans looked down their collective nose at Cincinnati before...

Yes, you and pretty much every other Pitt fan made it abundantly clear and obvious how "you" looked and view the University of Cincinnati. We knew damn well to the Pitt fans, UC "didn't belong" in "your" conference. We knew perfectly well that you didn't consider us on par with Miami, Virginia Tech, and Boston College...you all never let us forget that fact. We knew that "The Big East" really and truly died in 2004. Believe it or not, you (and by this I mean, YOU, good Dr...) made that all really clear "back in the day" along with the other Panther fans.

Congratulations... You, and the rest of the "Power" teams have managed to re-sequester us "new comers" back where you think we belong. Save me the nonsense of "Hopefully Cincinnati finds a lifeboat" because what you really mean is "but not in the ACC."

We get it. Thanks.