Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Who actually has had competitive success following realignment?
Author Message
THUNDERStruck73 Offline
Complete Jackass
*

Posts: 7,586
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 389
I Root For: Ubertomfoolery!
Location: Huntington, WV
Post: #41
RE: Who actually has had competitive success following realignment?
First of all, this just shows how weak the Big Least was, and secondly, ALL of those those schools who moved have come out ahead because they are laughing all the way to the bank.
07-25-2020 03:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Online
All American
*

Posts: 4,201
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 158
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Who actually has had competitive success following realignment?
(07-25-2020 03:00 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  First of all, this just shows how weak the Big Least was, and secondly, ALL of those those schools who moved have come out ahead because they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Everyone wants to rag on the Big East but they actually had a pretty good record in BCS Bowl games.

The Big East’s big flaw was that it lacked major tent pole programs that could drive television value.
07-25-2020 03:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,703
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 977
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #43
RE: Who actually has had competitive success following realignment?
(07-25-2020 03:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(07-25-2020 03:00 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  First of all, this just shows how weak the Big Least was, and secondly, ALL of those those schools who moved have come out ahead because they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Everyone wants to rag on the Big East but they actually had a pretty good record in BCS Bowl games.

The Big East’s big flaw was that it lacked major tent pole programs that could drive television value.

Yes, the Big East was actually a Real AQ conference on the field, even from 2005 - 2012 when it was a reduced eight-team league lacking any tentpole programs. And not just in BCS bowls, but overall as assessed by stuff like Sagarin conference rankings.

For example, here are the Big East's conference rankings from 2005 - 2012, the year USF, Cincy, and Louisville joined. For 2005 - 2008 these are Sagarin rankings, as Massey Composite does not have rankings those years. From 2009 - 2012 they are the MC rankings:

2005: 6
2006: 2
2007: 4
2008: 5
2009: 2
2010: 6
2011: 5
2012: 5

Overall average .... 4.375

So notice that (1) while the Big East was sometimes last, it was only last two of the eight years. Heck, it finished *second* as often as it finished last. Also (2) The Big East was always in the AQ group, it never finished behind a non-AQ conference. Overall, the Big East was clearly a bona-fide AQ conference on the field.

Big East was indeed derided as the "Big Least" during that time, but that perception was wrong.
(This post was last modified: 07-25-2020 05:01 PM by quo vadis.)
07-25-2020 04:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CliftonAve Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 16,411
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 620
I Root For: CinCity Pride
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Who actually has had competitive success following realignment?
(07-25-2020 03:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(07-25-2020 03:00 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  First of all, this just shows how weak the Big Least was, and secondly, ALL of those those schools who moved have come out ahead because they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Everyone wants to rag on the Big East but they actually had a pretty good record in BCS Bowl games.

The Big East’s big flaw was that it lacked major tent pole programs that could drive television value.

No disrespect— The three best teams in the Big East on the field from 2005-2012 were WVU, UC and Louisville. The ACC invited the 4th best (Pitt) and the worst performing team of that time period (Syracuse). Louisville got added after Maryland left. And people wonder why the teams that moved have not fared well on the field.
07-25-2020 06:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,981
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 142
I Root For: VUMemIUDePaulNC
Location: Tower Crane Town
Post: #45
RE: Who actually has had competitive success following realignment?
(07-25-2020 04:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-25-2020 03:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(07-25-2020 03:00 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  First of all, this just shows how weak the Big Least was, and secondly, ALL of those those schools who moved have come out ahead because they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Everyone wants to rag on the Big East but they actually had a pretty good record in BCS Bowl games.

The Big East’s big flaw was that it lacked major tent pole programs that could drive television value.

Yes, the Big East was actually a Real AQ conference on the field, even from 2005 - 2012 when it was a reduced eight-team league lacking any tentpole programs. And not just in BCS bowls, but overall as assessed by stuff like Sagarin conference rankings.

For example, here are the Big East's conference rankings from 2005 - 2012, the year USF, Cincy, and Louisville joined. For 2005 - 2008 these are Sagarin rankings, as Massey Composite does not have rankings those years. From 2009 - 2012 they are the MC rankings:

2005: 6
2006: 2
2007: 4
2008: 5
2009: 2
2010: 6
2011: 5
2012: 5

Overall average .... 4.375

So notice that (1) while the Big East was sometimes last, it was only last two of the eight years. Heck, it finished *second* as often as it finished last. Also (2) The Big East was always in the AQ group, it never finished behind a non-AQ conference. Overall, the Big East was clearly a bona-fide AQ conference on the field.

Big East was indeed derided as the "Big Least" during that time, but that perception was wrong.

Were you living in Baton Rouge during this time you note, Quo? Basically nobody in the South that I talked to during this span considered the Big East football a "bona-fide AQ conference on the field," as you note. They considered BE football clearly inferior. Nashville already had lots of Big Ten, ACC, Big 12 and SEC fans by the early 2000s, and the fans of programs in those leagues I talked to (and I talked to lots, and still do) had modest respect for Big East football.

That's not to suggest I agreed with them or that the Big East wasn't an AQ. But back then, and relatively speaking, Big East football was not much more respected than AAC football is now by these type fans. And though their perception may have been "wrong," as you note, if 99 percent of them perceived BE football as glaringly infererior ... it becomes the reality.
(This post was last modified: 07-25-2020 09:01 PM by bill dazzle.)
07-25-2020 08:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Online
All American
*

Posts: 4,201
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 158
I Root For: Ohio St, UC,MAC
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Who actually has had competitive success following realignment?
(07-25-2020 06:17 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  
(07-25-2020 03:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(07-25-2020 03:00 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  First of all, this just shows how weak the Big Least was, and secondly, ALL of those those schools who moved have come out ahead because they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Everyone wants to rag on the Big East but they actually had a pretty good record in BCS Bowl games.

The Big East’s big flaw was that it lacked major tent pole programs that could drive television value.

No disrespect— The three best teams in the Big East on the field from 2005-2012 were WVU, UC and Louisville. The ACC invited the 4th best (Pitt) and the worst performing team of that time period (Syracuse). Louisville got added after Maryland left. And people wonder why the teams that moved have not fared well on the field.

Pitt and Syracuse got their ticket out based on football accolades from decades ago and because they we better cultural fits in the ACC. Rutgers got in due to a television cash grab with zero thought given to cultural fit or on field competitiveness.

I wish the Big 12 would have had the foresight to add TCU, L’ville, Cincinnati, and WVU to return to 12. The Bearcats and Cardinals would have been valuable additions if given the chance.
07-25-2020 09:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,703
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 977
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #47
RE: Who actually has had competitive success following realignment?
(07-25-2020 08:55 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(07-25-2020 04:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-25-2020 03:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(07-25-2020 03:00 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  First of all, this just shows how weak the Big Least was, and secondly, ALL of those those schools who moved have come out ahead because they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Everyone wants to rag on the Big East but they actually had a pretty good record in BCS Bowl games.

The Big East’s big flaw was that it lacked major tent pole programs that could drive television value.

Yes, the Big East was actually a Real AQ conference on the field, even from 2005 - 2012 when it was a reduced eight-team league lacking any tentpole programs. And not just in BCS bowls, but overall as assessed by stuff like Sagarin conference rankings.

For example, here are the Big East's conference rankings from 2005 - 2012, the year USF, Cincy, and Louisville joined. For 2005 - 2008 these are Sagarin rankings, as Massey Composite does not have rankings those years. From 2009 - 2012 they are the MC rankings:

2005: 6
2006: 2
2007: 4
2008: 5
2009: 2
2010: 6
2011: 5
2012: 5

Overall average .... 4.375

So notice that (1) while the Big East was sometimes last, it was only last two of the eight years. Heck, it finished *second* as often as it finished last. Also (2) The Big East was always in the AQ group, it never finished behind a non-AQ conference. Overall, the Big East was clearly a bona-fide AQ conference on the field.

Big East was indeed derided as the "Big Least" during that time, but that perception was wrong.

Were you living in Baton Rouge during this time you note? Basically nobody in the South that I talked to during this span considered the Big East football a "bona-fide AQ conference on the field," as you note. They considered BE football clearly inferior. Nashville already had lots of Big Ten, ACC, Big 12 and SEC fans by the early 2000s, and the fans of programs in those leagues I talked to (and I talked to lots, and still do) had modest respect for Big East football.

That's not to suggest I agreed with them or that the Big East wasn't an AQ. But back then, and relatively speaking, Big East football was not much more respected than AAC football is now by these type fans.

No question, from 2005 onwards, the Big East was the butt of many jokes and the Big Least term captured the national consensus about the conference. Big East was often derided as the runt of the AQ litter with frequent complaints that it did not belong in the AQ group.

In terms of brand value, that perception was correct. But regarding performance on the field, it wasn't.
(This post was last modified: 07-25-2020 09:03 PM by quo vadis.)
07-25-2020 09:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bill dazzle Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,981
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 142
I Root For: VUMemIUDePaulNC
Location: Tower Crane Town
Post: #48
RE: Who actually has had competitive success following realignment?
(07-25-2020 09:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-25-2020 08:55 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(07-25-2020 04:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-25-2020 03:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(07-25-2020 03:00 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  First of all, this just shows how weak the Big Least was, and secondly, ALL of those those schools who moved have come out ahead because they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Everyone wants to rag on the Big East but they actually had a pretty good record in BCS Bowl games.

The Big East’s big flaw was that it lacked major tent pole programs that could drive television value.

Yes, the Big East was actually a Real AQ conference on the field, even from 2005 - 2012 when it was a reduced eight-team league lacking any tentpole programs. And not just in BCS bowls, but overall as assessed by stuff like Sagarin conference rankings.

For example, here are the Big East's conference rankings from 2005 - 2012, the year USF, Cincy, and Louisville joined. For 2005 - 2008 these are Sagarin rankings, as Massey Composite does not have rankings those years. From 2009 - 2012 they are the MC rankings:

2005: 6
2006: 2
2007: 4
2008: 5
2009: 2
2010: 6
2011: 5
2012: 5

Overall average .... 4.375

So notice that (1) while the Big East was sometimes last, it was only last two of the eight years. Heck, it finished *second* as often as it finished last. Also (2) The Big East was always in the AQ group, it never finished behind a non-AQ conference. Overall, the Big East was clearly a bona-fide AQ conference on the field.

Big East was indeed derided as the "Big Least" during that time, but that perception was wrong.

Were you living in Baton Rouge during this time you note? Basically nobody in the South that I talked to during this span considered the Big East football a "bona-fide AQ conference on the field," as you note. They considered BE football clearly inferior. Nashville already had lots of Big Ten, ACC, Big 12 and SEC fans by the early 2000s, and the fans of programs in those leagues I talked to (and I talked to lots, and still do) had modest respect for Big East football.

That's not to suggest I agreed with them or that the Big East wasn't an AQ. But back then, and relatively speaking, Big East football was not much more respected than AAC football is now by these type fans.

No question, from 2005 onwards, the Big East was the butt of many jokes and the Big Least term captured the national consensus about the conference. Clearly derided as the runt of the AQ litter with frequent complaints that it did not belong in the AQ group.

In terms of brand value, it was correct. But regarding performance on the field, it wasn't.

Good point. Agree fully.
07-25-2020 09:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,833
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 165
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #49
RE: Who actually has had competitive success following realignment?
(07-23-2020 08:04 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  My boss is a Missouri grad. He prefers the university be a member of the SEC more so than the Big 12 (though he hugely misses the basketball rivalry with Kansas). But his preference, hypothetically, is that Mizzou be a member of the Big Ten.

I feel (and I realize many folks disagree with me on this) that Missouri in the SEC actually makes some sense — geographically and culturally. As a Vanderbilt fan, I like having the Tigers in the SEC East Division in football.
I agree. As a Mizzou fan I hope the Tigers remain in the SEC East.
07-25-2020 09:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 784
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 26
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #50
RE: Who actually has had competitive success following realignment?
(07-25-2020 09:01 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(07-25-2020 06:17 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  
(07-25-2020 03:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(07-25-2020 03:00 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  First of all, this just shows how weak the Big Least was, and secondly, ALL of those those schools who moved have come out ahead because they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Everyone wants to rag on the Big East but they actually had a pretty good record in BCS Bowl games.

The Big East’s big flaw was that it lacked major tent pole programs that could drive television value.

No disrespect— The three best teams in the Big East on the field from 2005-2012 were WVU, UC and Louisville. The ACC invited the 4th best (Pitt) and the worst performing team of that time period (Syracuse). Louisville got added after Maryland left. And people wonder why the teams that moved have not fared well on the field.

Pitt and Syracuse got their ticket out based on football accolades from decades ago and because they we better cultural fits in the ACC. Rutgers got in due to a television cash grab with zero thought given to cultural fit or on field competitiveness.

I wish the Big 12 would have had the foresight to add TCU, L’ville, Cincinnati, and WVU to return to 12. The Bearcats and Cardinals would have been valuable additions if given the chance.

If Louisville and Cincinnati had joined the Big 12 with West Virginia, the ACC would have had no other reasonable choice to replace Maryland but Connecticut so I would have liked it better if that had happened. The ACC could have remained academically superior and "Atlantic" while West Virginia would have two more close rivals in conference and Cincinnati would have been in the P5 club.
07-25-2020 09:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jedclampett Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,935
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Temple
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Who actually has had competitive success following realignment?
(07-25-2020 11:00 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Quo—what exactly is your justification for why Penn St doesn’t fit in the Big Ten?

For Ohio St fans the Penn St game is the second biggest game of the year. Unlike the Michigan series there’s a lot of mutual respect between the two programs and what they’ve accomplished. The Nittany Lions have have competitive and exciting series against the Michigan schools. For newcomers Maryland and Rutgers it’s their biggest game—though one they aren’t likely to win.

Penn State has been a plus for Big Ten FB; however, the Big Ten hasn't necessarily been a plus for Penn State FB.

Academically, it's the other way around. Being in the Big Ten has been a huge plus for the University, academically.
07-25-2020 10:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,703
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 977
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #52
RE: Who actually has had competitive success following realignment?
(07-25-2020 11:00 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Quo—what exactly is your justification for why Penn St doesn’t fit in the Big Ten?

For Ohio St fans the Penn St game is the second biggest game of the year. Unlike the Michigan series there’s a lot of mutual respect between the two programs and what they’ve accomplished. The Nittany Lions have have competitive and exciting series against the Michigan schools. For newcomers Maryland and Rutgers it’s their biggest game—though one they aren’t likely to win.

Obviously, Penn State is a major football power, so adding them helped the B1G football brand and performance on the field. Of course the B1G was already strong in those areas before PS, but still. But I've always felt that culturally, PS feels "grafted on" to the B1G. There's little in the way of organic connections between them and the other B1G schools and it hasn't evolved in the 25+ years they've been conference members either, and the attempts to manufacture those connections, like the PS - Michigan State "land grant" rivalry have fallen flat.

And sure, Penn State vs Michigan games are going to be big games, but only because of the program-stature involved. I mean, if Ohio State joined the SEC, then Auburn vs Ohio State games would be big deals every year, but only because it would be two big powers playing, Ohio State still wouldn't "feel" any more a part of the SEC.

Really, the one event that has improved PS's sense of integration with the league was the addition of Rutgers and Maryland, which provided them with some eastern partners that they do have an organic connection.

Culturally, PS is IMO much more naturally an independent or a member of a Big East-type east/northeast football conference. In contrast, TAMU- and I mention this because my comments about PS were in response to someone comparing them to TAMU joining the SEC - feels more like a real member of the SEC eight years in to their membership than PS feels culturally integrated into the B1G after going on 30 years. They've felt more integrated into the SEC than PS is in the B1G since the day TAMU joined.
(This post was last modified: 07-26-2020 07:10 AM by quo vadis.)
07-26-2020 07:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,703
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 977
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #53
RE: Who actually has had competitive success following realignment?
(07-25-2020 01:40 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(07-24-2020 08:57 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-24-2020 01:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(07-24-2020 09:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-24-2020 07:52 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  I still consider the SEC move a resounding success ...

It's easily the best realignment move - for both the conference and the school - of the last 25 years, arguably ever.

An A+ decision by TAMU and the SEC.

D- for your analysis

Penn St. to Big 10?
Florida St. to ACC?
Formation of Big East with Miami?
Secession of SEC from Southern Conference?
And in last 25 years:
Formation of Big 12

F+ for your analysis

Penn State joined the B1G more than 25 years ago, and arguably hasn't worked out as well as TAMU to the SEC. Penn State has never fit in culturally with the B1G, still feels like they should be Indy or in an eastern conference.

FSU to ACC was also more than 25 years ago, and they've never integrated into the ACC either. They just took their winning ways from the independence days and brought them to the ACC.

The other two things aren't examples of one school joining a conference but rather conferences forming or dissolving so bizarro to even mention them.

01-wingedeagle

F- for your followup.
Penn St. expanded the Big 10 market and the number of premier matchups. Revenues took off.
FSU made the ACC, turning them from a conference viewed as a tweener in football to a major conference. They are very much an ACC school.
A&M was a big financial winner for the SEC, but the SEC's dominance has slipped since the last expansion (not that it was reasonable to expect them to continue to win the championship nearly every year).
Yes, they were more than 25 years ago, but you said A&M was arguably the best ever. Your words. Its only arguable by a D student.

And your comment said realignment move, not expansion. The others were realignment moves.

I'd add Marshall to the MAC as a better move within the last 25 years. Marshall to the MAC was relatively (for the MAC) as big as FSU to the ACC. It woke up the whole conference. They started regularly getting ranked schools after going over 20 years without one.

03-lmfao

Your original response ignored my claim about "best in last 25 years" (those were my words too, LOL) to nit-pick about the tacked-on "arguably" best ever, and on that basis gave me a D-. That's ridiculous analysis.

But even taking the troll bait and going there, TAMU to the SEC *is* arguably better than PS to the B1G and FSU to the ACC. Both TAMU and the SEC have benefited very nicely from the membership and it feels like a natural marriage.

FSU? They were FSU before joining the ACC in football and were afterwards. They still don't feel like an actual ACC member 30 years later, it's still a marriage of convenience, FSU gets to park its non-revenue sports in a top conference, the ACC gets FSU's football cachet.

Likewise PS after 30 years in the B1G, as I explained in a recent post.

And your claim that "my words" about "realignment move" meant i was also including general conference reconfiguration is absurd, as the only example I gave was the movement of a single team, not the dissolution or formation of whole conferences. So get that nonsense out of here.

Good Lord, you doubled down on "F".

07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 07-26-2020 07:19 AM by quo vadis.)
07-26-2020 07:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AntiG Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,162
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 30
I Root For: Rutgers
Location: NYC
Post: #54
RE: Who actually has had competitive success following realignment?
Rutgers wasn't a disaster immediately - was actually successful in their first year in the B1G due to Schiano's recruits becoming upperclassmen, which included knocking off Michigan, losing to Penn State late in the 4th off of a pick-six after a brilliant defensive job all game long, destroying Indiana, an insane comeback win against Maryland, and beating down UNC in the Quick Lane Bowl. The issue afterwards was that Schiano had left for the NFL the year before, and not only did they lose some big-time verbal commits once he left like Saquon Barkley, but those upperclassmen that had winning seasons in 2013 and 2014 started graduated while Flood struggled with recruiting as well as the academic violation he committed. Then the Ash disaster hiring afterwards, plus the armed robbery involving 5 first and second year players.
07-26-2020 10:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,703
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 977
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #55
RE: Who actually has had competitive success following realignment?
(07-26-2020 10:58 AM)AntiG Wrote:  Rutgers wasn't a disaster immediately - was actually successful in their first year in the B1G due to Schiano's recruits becoming upperclassmen, which included knocking off Michigan, losing to Penn State late in the 4th off of a pick-six after a brilliant defensive job all game long, destroying Indiana, an insane comeback win against Maryland, and beating down UNC in the Quick Lane Bowl. The issue afterwards was that Schiano had left for the NFL the year before, and not only did they lose some big-time verbal commits once he left like Saquon Barkley, but those upperclassmen that had winning seasons in 2013 and 2014 started graduated while Flood struggled with recruiting as well as the academic violation he committed. Then the Ash disaster hiring afterwards, plus the armed robbery involving 5 first and second year players.

I could put together a nice paragraph like this explaining why USF has been lousy at times during the past seven seasons as well, including right now, but the bottom line is ...... lousy. Applies to Rutgers too.

07-coffee3
07-26-2020 11:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
fresnofanatic Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 736
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation: 31
I Root For: fresno state
Location:
Post: #56
RE: Who actually has had competitive success following realignment?
(07-23-2020 04:38 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  
(07-23-2020 04:25 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  TCU and Virginia Tech found some success but haven't done much over the past few years.
TCU is a success story... But not really from a power conference. I mean if you go all the way back to SWC but there was about 16-18 yrs there outside of the power conference structure. But yes, they are one of the successful moves in their current conference. I was trying to limit the discussion to those who moved directly from one power conference to another. I left Utah off for this same reason who also has seen some competitive success.

Sent from my LM-G820 using CSNbbs mobile app

The Mountain West was as much of a P conference it’s last few years prior to realignment as AAC has been the last few years.
07-26-2020 11:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,703
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 977
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #57
RE: Who actually has had competitive success following realignment?
(07-26-2020 11:27 AM)fresnofanatic Wrote:  
(07-23-2020 04:38 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  
(07-23-2020 04:25 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  TCU and Virginia Tech found some success but haven't done much over the past few years.
TCU is a success story... But not really from a power conference. I mean if you go all the way back to SWC but there was about 16-18 yrs there outside of the power conference structure. But yes, they are one of the successful moves in their current conference. I was trying to limit the discussion to those who moved directly from one power conference to another. I left Utah off for this same reason who also has seen some competitive success.

Sent from my LM-G820 using CSNbbs mobile app

The Mountain West was as much of a P conference it’s last few years prior to realignment as AAC has been the last few years.

In the last years before the 2011-2012 realignment, the MW was better than the AAC ever has been.

E.g., in 2008, 2009, and 2010, the MW had a Sagarin rating between 70 and 71. In contrast, this past year, easily the best the AAC has had, its overall Sag rating was 68-69.
07-26-2020 11:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
IWokeUpLikeThis Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,190
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 358
I Root For: NIU, Chicago St
Location: South Side
Post: #58
RE: Who actually has had competitive success following realignment?
(07-25-2020 04:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-25-2020 03:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(07-25-2020 03:00 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  First of all, this just shows how weak the Big Least was, and secondly, ALL of those those schools who moved have come out ahead because they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Everyone wants to rag on the Big East but they actually had a pretty good record in BCS Bowl games.

The Big East’s big flaw was that it lacked major tent pole programs that could drive television value.

Yes, the Big East was actually a Real AQ conference on the field, even from 2005 - 2012 when it was a reduced eight-team league lacking any tentpole programs. And not just in BCS bowls, but overall as assessed by stuff like Sagarin conference rankings.

For example, here are the Big East's conference rankings from 2005 - 2012, the year USF, Cincy, and Louisville joined. For 2005 - 2008 these are Sagarin rankings, as Massey Composite does not have rankings those years. From 2009 - 2012 they are the MC rankings:

2005: 6
2006: 2
2007: 4
2008: 5
2009: 2
2010: 6
2011: 5
2012: 5

Overall average .... 4.375

So notice that (1) while the Big East was sometimes last, it was only last two of the eight years. Heck, it finished *second* as often as it finished last. Also (2) The Big East was always in the AQ group, it never finished behind a non-AQ conference. Overall, the Big East was clearly a bona-fide AQ conference on the field.

Big East was indeed derided as the "Big Least" during that time, but that perception was wrong.

Watching a rerun of ‘07 USF-Rutgers right now. Not only is Rutgers completely sold out, they just showed a clip of a USF watch party at the Sun Dome filled to the rafters with everyone jumping up and down. Incredible. Those are things you see for the road team in like the Stanley Cup Final, World Series, etc. This was a mid-October weeknight game.

Big East football was big time.
07-26-2020 11:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Online
Legend
*

Posts: 34,703
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 977
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #59
RE: Who actually has had competitive success following realignment?
(07-26-2020 11:47 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  
(07-25-2020 04:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-25-2020 03:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(07-25-2020 03:00 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  First of all, this just shows how weak the Big Least was, and secondly, ALL of those those schools who moved have come out ahead because they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Everyone wants to rag on the Big East but they actually had a pretty good record in BCS Bowl games.

The Big East’s big flaw was that it lacked major tent pole programs that could drive television value.

Yes, the Big East was actually a Real AQ conference on the field, even from 2005 - 2012 when it was a reduced eight-team league lacking any tentpole programs. And not just in BCS bowls, but overall as assessed by stuff like Sagarin conference rankings.

For example, here are the Big East's conference rankings from 2005 - 2012, the year USF, Cincy, and Louisville joined. For 2005 - 2008 these are Sagarin rankings, as Massey Composite does not have rankings those years. From 2009 - 2012 they are the MC rankings:

2005: 6
2006: 2
2007: 4
2008: 5
2009: 2
2010: 6
2011: 5
2012: 5

Overall average .... 4.375

So notice that (1) while the Big East was sometimes last, it was only last two of the eight years. Heck, it finished *second* as often as it finished last. Also (2) The Big East was always in the AQ group, it never finished behind a non-AQ conference. Overall, the Big East was clearly a bona-fide AQ conference on the field.

Big East was indeed derided as the "Big Least" during that time, but that perception was wrong.

Watching a rerun of ‘07 USF-Rutgers right now. Not only is Rutgers completely sold out, they just showed a clip of a USF watch party at the Sun Dome filled to the rafters with everyone jumping up and down. Incredible. Those are things you see for the road team in like the Stanley Cup Final, World Series, etc. This was a mid-October weeknight game.

Big East football was big time.

Against every odds, that 8-team Big East from 2005 onwards not only played well on the field, it also managed to create a modicum of a shared identity, despite the thrown-together nature of the conference. Even my USF, separated by the entire South from all the other teams up north, managed to fit in as kind of that "crazy uncle down in Florida", LOL.

Too bad it came to an end.

07-coffee3
(This post was last modified: 07-26-2020 12:01 PM by quo vadis.)
07-26-2020 12:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 24,898
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 2584
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #60
RE: Who actually has had competitive success following realignment?
(07-25-2020 10:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-25-2020 07:35 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  
(07-24-2020 09:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-23-2020 09:38 PM)Mav Wrote:  A&M has had Manziel and has been mediocre otherwise.

A&M has averaged 8.3 wins per season in the SEC, and their worst season has been 7 wins with a best of 11, and no losing seasons. They have gone to a bowl all eight seasons with a 5-3 bowl record.

In their last eight seasons in the Big 12, TAMU averaged 6.75 wins a year, a low of 4 wins and a high of 9, and three of the eight seasons were losing seasons, they went 1-5 in bowls during that time**.

So I think it's fair to say they have improved since joining the SEC.


** One thing that seems to have helped with bowl records is the change in conference. TAMU was 0-3 vs SEC teams in bowl games as a member of the Big 12, it is 3-1 in bowl games vs the Big 12 as a member of the SEC.

It helps when the SEC commish gets to hand pick the matchups for bowl season after the Sugar Bowl selection.

Well, the SEC is often at a disadvantage in the non-NY6 bowls, because it usually puts multiple teams in the NY6, which means weaker teams get bumped up to better non-NY6 bowls. For example, last year the Big 12 put two teams in the NY6, the SEC put four teams in. So that means down the bowl ladder, if a bowl is supposed to be "SEC #3 vs Big 12 #3", what happens is it ends up being SEC #5 vs Big 12 #3. That has happened a lot in the CFP and BCS era.

(07-25-2020 08:55 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  
(07-25-2020 04:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(07-25-2020 03:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(07-25-2020 03:00 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  First of all, this just shows how weak the Big Least was, and secondly, ALL of those those schools who moved have come out ahead because they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Everyone wants to rag on the Big East but they actually had a pretty good record in BCS Bowl games.

The Big East’s big flaw was that it lacked major tent pole programs that could drive television value.

Yes, the Big East was actually a Real AQ conference on the field, even from 2005 - 2012 when it was a reduced eight-team league lacking any tentpole programs. And not just in BCS bowls, but overall as assessed by stuff like Sagarin conference rankings.

For example, here are the Big East's conference rankings from 2005 - 2012, the year USF, Cincy, and Louisville joined. For 2005 - 2008 these are Sagarin rankings, as Massey Composite does not have rankings those years. From 2009 - 2012 they are the MC rankings:

2005: 6
2006: 2
2007: 4
2008: 5
2009: 2
2010: 6
2011: 5
2012: 5

Overall average .... 4.375

So notice that (1) while the Big East was sometimes last, it was only last two of the eight years. Heck, it finished *second* as often as it finished last. Also (2) The Big East was always in the AQ group, it never finished behind a non-AQ conference. Overall, the Big East was clearly a bona-fide AQ conference on the field.

Big East was indeed derided as the "Big Least" during that time, but that perception was wrong.

Were you living in Baton Rouge during this time you note, Quo? Basically nobody in the South that I talked to during this span considered the Big East football a "bona-fide AQ conference on the field," as you note. They considered BE football clearly inferior. Nashville already had lots of Big Ten, ACC, Big 12 and SEC fans by the early 2000s, and the fans of programs in those leagues I talked to (and I talked to lots, and still do) had modest respect for Big East football.

That's not to suggest I agreed with them or that the Big East wasn't an AQ. But back then, and relatively speaking, Big East football was not much more respected than AAC football is now by these type fans. And though their perception may have been "wrong," as you note, if 99 percent of them perceived BE football as glaringly infererior ... it becomes the reality.

The Big East, like Notre Dame to a certain extent, faded in power as the print media that favored them due to circulation numbers in those regions faded. As the media became wholly electronic and national in scope regional circulation didn't mean as much as the ability to draw a crowd nationally. So the new goal was national eyeballs on the tube for advertising, instead of circulation of regional newspapers which were syndicated.

So there was a massive shift away from hyping smaller private schools with very regional alumni bases to hyping larger state schools with massive alumni bases, and hyping schools with historical brand recognition. And that methodology has worked so well that the historical brands with a few exceptions have monetized themselves even more effectively creating an even larger gulf between themselves and the rest resulting in a self perpetuating cycle of brand boosting, ad revenue to their carriers, more money, more exposure, and more brand boosting until the nation is fatigued with them. What has saved Notre Dame while relegating the former Big East powers to the archives of those no longer relevant, is Notre Dame is a historical brand with a national audience.

So now that College Football is reduced to Oklahoma, Ohio State, and Alabama, with the ACC's rise of Clemson as the would be fresh face, and now that the SEC can muster a fresh face often enough to make it seem legitimate, and Notre Dame can string together a run often enough to remain an alternative, the new network driving force is to consolidate the brands so they play each other more often in an effort to drive revenue maximizing games. And by the process of elimination this is supposed to bring fresh faces back into contention.

So from the time of the "Big East" those schools have not substantially changed in quality, they've just been abandoned by their failing press and their names have been lost in the fervor for national darlings and instead of dying on the field they have slowly died from lack of exposure.

There are no, and never have been, power conferences. What are called power conferences are those which group more nationally recognized brands together. And those which group the most are rewarded the best, hyped the most for ratings, and are therefore naturally inclined to get the best recruits which also want the most exposure in hopes of getting the most tube time and therefore the best signing bonuses when they turn pro.

And guess what (this is addressed to Bill Dazzle)? They are going to come from those teams that have the most people watching them and have the most exciting venues, which make the products being advertised nationally seem cooler than those of their competitors.

What the SEC bellyached about for years was the AP selection of the national champ. Why? It wasn't about the best football team in America, it was about the football teams in America which sold the most newspapers, and those weren't in the South. When the BCS was instituted the perceptions of who had the best teams shifted dramatically because of that 7 year run of titles by the SEC. The CFP hasn't really changed that.

When that happened the West Coast simply tuned out. The Big 10 got serious about competing, and Florida State and Clemson became the anti-SEC darlings and Oklahoma was tossed into that mix as well with hopes for Texas.

Now I'm sure it is not lost on you but, the message should be indelibly clear. "Power" conferences don't exist. Those with the best collection of "Power" schools make enough to retain power schools. Those who don't are encouraged to relocate. And none of it is about football. It's about ratings, which have replaced circulation, and nothing has changed except that regions matter less and national draw matters more. Beauty pageants were once in the Spring and football was in the Fall, and there wasn't a dime's bit of difference between in effect and both were wholly commercial.
(This post was last modified: 07-26-2020 12:43 PM by JRsec.)
07-26-2020 12:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.