(10-13-2021 04:31 AM)Todor Wrote:  I'd say the Big 12 as well. People got impatient on their waiting to add schools, but as it worked out, they got great adds and really solidified themselves.

A lot of mid level school presidents and ADs have to be looking at Central Florida and wondering, "damn, how'd they do that?" Not many mid major type schools ever make the jump, and for the Big 12 to get a very deserving one like UCF (in a market like Florida no less!) is a great matchup.

For a conference that lost a lot on the surface, they rebounded perfectly and can now sit back and watch.

Um, the Big 12 lost *Texas* and *Oklahoma*, the only valuable schools in the conference, and added UCF, Cincy, BYU and Houston?

IMO, they are far and away the biggest losers of this realignment. So I imagine they are enjoying all this by far the least.

(10-13-2021 06:41 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  I'm scratching my head about those saying it's the Big 12. That league is facing court battles & attorneys' fees battling over Texas and OU's departure dates and exit fees. They're losing their two best brands and money makers BY FAR. The television payout is going down by ~$10M. They've landed good additions, but how is any of the above... comfortable?

For the Big East, it's all entertainment. It's theater, and it isn't affecting them at all.

Yes, saying the Big 12 has enjoyed this round of realignment is like, I don't know, saying the Big East was the biggest winner of the 2011-2012 round of realignment.

Or that Japan was the biggest winner of World War II, that Kansas City enjoyed the result of last year's Super Bowl, that the Democrats enjoyed the results of the 2010 midterm elections, etc.

For this cycle, I'd say the Big 10 and PAC.

The Big 10 saw the SEC take Texas and OK, looked at how much money they make and said, "we're good."

That let the PAC breathe a sigh of relief and allowed them to look at the landscape (whether KSU and OSU or TCU/Houston) and say "no thanks" as well.

Of course that could change in the next cycle.

(10-13-2021 07:50 AM)Soobahk40050 Wrote:  For this cycle, I'd say the Big 10 and PAC.

The Big 10 saw the SEC take Texas and OK, looked at how much money they make and said, "we're good."

That let the PAC breathe a sigh of relief and allowed them to look at the landscape (whether KSU and OSU or TCU/Houston) and say "no thanks" as well.

Of course that could change in the next cycle.

IMO, the formation of the Alliance and the putting-of-brakes on quick playoff expansion is strong evidence that the PAC and B1G were and are very threatened, and thus not relaxed at all, about the SEC getting TX and OU.

(10-13-2021 07:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Um, the Big 12 lost *Texas* and *Oklahoma*, the only valuable schools in the conference, and added UCF, Cincy, BYU and Houston?

IMO, they are far and away the biggest losers of this realignment. So I imagine they are enjoying all this by far the least.

I agree, the Big 12 has made the best of the terrible hand they were dealt but don't think they're comfortable or having fun with this.

Any one of the remaining or incoming Big 12 schools would be gone in a heartbeat if the PAC, B1G, SEC or probably even the ACC called...and the only assurance they have that won't happen is the sour grapes Alliance which may or may not actually prove to be lasting and offer any tangible benefits.

While realignment never stops, I did not think we would be riding a wave in 2021 (I was thinking more in 2022/23, given the conclusion of a few TV contracts). I must say that the past few months have been very entertaining from both a hypothetical and reactionary perspective. It is incredibly reassuring to have the present Big East not be at the center of realignment once again (as it had been for a full decade-plus); heck, it is not even on the radar anymore of being poached - which speaks volumes to the one of the many successes that present conference attained. I will also say, speaking on personal experience, it is not an enjoyable experience having your school being without a place to sit during musical chairs. We all emotionally invest so much into our schools, our sports and our teams that we all have zero control over how schools align themselves. The cold, harsh reality that your school can be pushed further down the ladder - due to not being as perceived valuable or desirable as other schools - is a harsh one.

The Big East revealed there is value in like-minded membership and symmetry within athletic departments. The C7 (and Butler, Creighton and Xavier) were never expecting to be paid tens of millions annually in television revenue; however, it did seek strength in a unified membership; driven by basketball, with passionate fan bases all located in metropolitan areas and similar school missions. Even if the Big East were to take a step back in basketball, the schools would still stick together given their history, their academic focus, their (mostly) religious affiliation and common core values. They aren't just not following football money and riches; they are forging their own path together - and there is tremendous value in that for a conference long-term.

If anything, I am surprised that other leagues have not been formed and created with a similar purpose. Whether it be a new regional G5 football-focused league, or a new high-major basketball league, etc., there are tons of similar schools that could bring value by bonding together. For various reasons, this has not occurred; it would be great for college athletics if more leagues were born out of similar circumstance than that of the Big East.

(10-13-2021 06:55 AM)schmolik Wrote:  The Big East shouldn't feel threatened to lose any of its members as long as schools operate football first and football 100% or 95%. The moment that % starts to shrink and men's basketball starts to play a bigger role the Big East could be in danger. As long as the ACC remains intact, I think the Big East should be fine. If they get raided and have to backfill, then you never know, especially if the football first schools that objected to UConn being in the ACC leave. If the basketball schools ever get control of the ACC again, what's to stop them from accepting Villanova and/or Georgetown as an all but football member in addition to UConn? We're a long way from that happening, but you never know.

Also, the Big East just like every other conference in the country can't like the SEC schools getting richer and adding Oklahoma and Texas only makes them richer. I'm in the Big 10 and I don't like it either. It's highly unlikely Ohio State or Penn State is leaving for the SEC. Doesn't mean they aren't going to be richer and more likely to win in the future (more money, better facilities, better coaching, better able to attract recruits).

I mean, if what you’re saying is that the Big East is vulnerable in the event that everything that’s important now will suddenly become unimportant in the future, then I think every conference would be happy with that status.

As a Big Ten fan, I’m concerned about the long-term effects of demographic shifts in the country toward the SEC region. However, I’m not worried about the money in the short or medium terms because the Big Ten was frankly run better as a financial entity where the SEC adding UT and OU is really only allowing that league to catch up to the Big Ten in revenue as opposed to blowing by them.

For the Big East, everyone needs to remember that they actually make a P5 level of money in terms of a basketball allocation. So, the revenue differences due to football aren’t nearly as stark and the nature of basketball recruiting has less of a divide with the P5 (where individual coaching relationships generally prevail over institutional power more compared to football recruiting). That’s not to say that the SEC can leverage football money to be better in basketball (which the Big Ten has already done fairly well), but there’s just a natural limit to how much talent you can stockpile in hoops (whereas football power emphasizes *depth* of talent and that’s why the top talent disproportionately concentrated itself in a handful of places).

SEC? Big East? MAC?

Rank Amateurs! All of them.

The one and only true answer is and always will be the IVY LEAGUE.

If we're talking FCS, the SEC and the MAC.

If you eliminate I-A football from the equation, the Ivy League and the Big East.

(10-13-2021 08:04 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  While realignment never stops, I did not think we would be riding a wave in 2021 (I was thinking more in 2022/23, given the conclusion of a few TV contracts). I must say that the past few months have been very entertaining from both a hypothetical and reactionary perspective. It is incredibly reassuring to have the present Big East not be at the center of realignment once again (as it had been for a full decade-plus); heck, it is not even on the radar anymore of being poached - which speaks volumes to the one of the many successes that present conference attained. I will also say, speaking on personal experience, it is not an enjoyable experience having your school being without a place to sit during musical chairs. We all emotionally invest so much into our schools, our sports and our teams that we all have zero control over how schools align themselves. The cold, harsh reality that your school can be pushed further down the ladder - due to not being as perceived valuable or desirable as other schools - is a harsh one.

The Big East revealed there is value in like-minded membership and symmetry within athletic departments. The C7 (and Butler, Creighton and Xavier) were never expecting to be paid tens of millions annually in television revenue; however, it did seek strength in a unified membership; driven by basketball, with passionate fan bases all located in metropolitan areas and similar school missions. Even if the Big East were to take a step back in basketball, the schools would still stick together given their history, their academic focus, their (mostly) religious affiliation and common core values. They aren't just not following football money and riches; they are forging their own path together - and there is tremendous value in that for a conference long-term.

If anything, I am surprised that other leagues have not been formed and created with a similar purpose. Whether it be a new regional G5 football-focused league, or a new high-major basketball league, etc., there are tons of similar schools that could bring value by bonding together. For various reasons, this has not occurred; it would be great for college athletics if more leagues were born out of similar circumstance than that of the Big East.

What? All the Big East revealed is that conference realignment is based on football, and if you don't play said sport then you don't have to worry about realignment.

(10-13-2021 08:14 AM)Rube Dali Wrote:  SEC? Big East? MAC?

Rank Amateurs! All of them.

The one and only true answer is and always will be the IVY LEAGUE.

I can assure you that the Ivy League is not enjoying nor even watching the flailing motions of the plebeians beneath them.

The biggest Winner in this round of football realignment:
SEC: gaining Texas and Oklahoma

The biggest Loser in this round of football realignment:
Big 12: losing Texas and Oklahoma

The Ivy league probably doesn't care and the Big East is just happy to no longer have to worry about this stuff.

WAC- on its death bed for years and now is adding a bunch of schools.

Slummit: still alive somehow too.

The Belch: great geography and very solid football. Won’t get poached by any G5’s.

The MAC.

(10-13-2021 07:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-13-2021 04:31 AM)Todor Wrote:  I'd say the Big 12 as well. People got impatient on their waiting to add schools, but as it worked out, they got great adds and really solidified themselves.

A lot of mid level school presidents and ADs have to be looking at Central Florida and wondering, "damn, how'd they do that?" Not many mid major type schools ever make the jump, and for the Big 12 to get a very deserving one like UCF (in a market like Florida no less!) is a great matchup.

For a conference that lost a lot on the surface, they rebounded perfectly and can now sit back and watch.

Um, the Big 12 lost *Texas* and *Oklahoma*, the only valuable schools in the conference, and added UCF, Cincy, BYU and Houston?

IMO, they are far and away the biggest losers of this realignment. So I imagine they are enjoying all this by far the least.

The biggest losers of realignment this time around are the AAC leftovers.

Especially Wichita - they thought they were making a huge upgrade by leaving the MVC, but the new AAC is going to be at the same level as the MVC. They gave up their historic rivals for nothing.

The Big East may have been lucky to land UConn, but UConn would answer a phone call from either the B1G (not gonna happen) or ACC (only very slightly more likely) before the first three numbers were dialed. A public, state-flagship university stuck in a conference with a bunch of private catholic schools isn't a recipe for happiness. Membership in the new Big East doesn't offer much financial upside when compared with conferences that sponsor football. In the AAC, UConn was one good coaching hire (not a re-warmed Randy Edsall) away from football respectability and a realistic chance at something better.

The SEC is the biggest winner obviously. The Big 12 responses are perplexing because of who they lost. I get why the Big East is getting mentioned but I don’t think this is good for them long term. They’re a basketball conference right? I’m sure they can see the rise of the SEC in basketball and I’m sure they can figure out why. Now they’ll have even more money to throw at the sport. The money is going to keep going up for Pac 12, B1G, ACC schools as well as the years pass. They’ll certainly be an interesting group to watch over the next 10-15 years.

(10-13-2021 06:49 AM)shizzle787 Wrote:  The SEC because they hold all the cards. The Big East is a good second choice because they are stable as well.

Except the SEC is not just sitting back watching, they are a player in the field. They may be celebrating on the field, but they are not sitting back with popcorn.

(10-13-2021 09:08 AM)RobUCF Wrote:  What? All the Big East revealed is that conference realignment is based on football, and if you don't play said sport then you don't have to worry about realignment.

By splitting off from football the Big East made more money and retained their status as a high-major (and fended off the B1G and ACC for Madison Square Garden to boot) at a time when the consensus was that everything is about football. They're objectively better off today than they would be had they gone with the "common knowledge".

(10-13-2021 10:15 AM)colohank Wrote:  The Big East may have been lucky to land UConn, but UConn would answer a phone call from either the B1G (not gonna happen) or ACC (only very slightly more likely) before the first three numbers were dialed. A public, state-flagship university stuck in a conference with a bunch of private catholic schools isn't a recipe for happiness. Membership in the new Big East doesn't offer much financial upside when compared with conferences that sponsor football. In the AAC, UConn was one good coaching hire (not a re-warmed Randy Edsall) away from football respectability and a realistic chance at something better.

I mean, throw enough money at UConn and you can force a move, but the idea that "public school = must be with public schools" is badly misunderstanding UConn's history and the landscape in the Northeast in general. UConn's traditional rivals are essentially all private schools, with the possible exception of Pitt (which would be firmly a second-tier rival if you count them). UConn basketball can happily hang out in the Big East/MSG indefinitely.

The SEC and B1G for being on a power trip.