|
Expansion: winners and losers
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2013 5:49 PM
Expansion: winners and losers
Which school(s) have had the most improvement in their position due to schools changing conferences (not necessarily themselves) and which have been hurt the most? I know there is a lot that is yet to be determined with the future so that obviously will factor in.
The biggest winner IMO is Rutgers. They went from possibly being left out completely to being in one of the two most stable conferences. The other really big winner which doesn't get a lot of pub is Utah. They went from being in the MWC, a good league albeit not one of the survivors, to being one of the 12 in the only BCS league in the Western and Mountain timezones.
Honorable mention: Nebraska, Colorado, TCU, Louisville, Big 12 low profile programs (Baylor, Texas Tech, Okie State, K-State and Iowa State who are stayin' alive by keeping the Big 12 together)
The biggest loser is UConn. Obviously, Cincy and South Florida are crying "me too", but I think of the Big East leftovers, UConn really had a case of academics, market and athletics that would have been attractive to either the ACC or the Big Ten, and they probably aren't going to make the final cut.
Honorable mention: WVU
Last edited 2/27/2013 7:31 AM by CornbreadandCollards
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2013 7:23 PM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
Two items of interest this past week...WVU lost over $12M last year and now the B12 has been asked to study ways to help with the long travel times. SAs are getting back to campus at 4AM after road trips, making them lose an additional day of classes.
It would seem being on an island is not all it's cracked up to be.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2013 7:34 PM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
Since those teams were already in some sort of conference and weren't really absorbed by 'expansion', how do you not say Texas A&M made a grand slam move?
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2013 8:32 PM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
---------------------------------------------
--- TennesseeVolSEC wrote:
Since those teams were already in some sort of conference and weren't really absorbed by 'expansion', how do you not say Texas A&M made a grand slam move?
---------------------------------------------
A&M was the biggest winner. No doubt about it.
Cincinnati and UConn were the biggest losers.
Cincy in particular.
Football is driving this new wave, and, they've done pretty well. They've had five 10-win seasons in the past six years, all without much fanfare. They have a quality basketball program. Their academics are solid, and improving. Ohio is a great recruiting ground for HSFB and hoops, as well as a big TV market.
IMHO, they have a much bigger upside than UConn does.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2013 9:15 PM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
---------------------------------------------
--- WesternStormer wrote:
---------------------------------------------
--- TennesseeVolSEC wrote:
Since those teams were already in some sort of conference and weren't really absorbed by 'expansion', how do you not say Texas A&M made a grand slam move?
---------------------------------------------
A&M was the biggest winner. No doubt about it.
Cincinnati and UConn were the biggest losers.
Cincy in particular.
Football is driving this new wave, and, they've done pretty well. They've had five 10-win seasons in the past six years, all without much fanfare. They have a quality basketball program. Their academics are solid, and improving. Ohio is a great recruiting ground for HSFB and hoops, as well as a big TV market.
IMHO, they have a much bigger upside than UConn does.
---------------------------------------------
But UConn is in a huge metro area. I want nothing to do with either, but still.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2013 10:34 PM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
---------------------------------------------
--- WesternStormer wrote:
A&M was the biggest winner. No doubt about it.
---------------------------------------------
No, it was definitely Rutgers considering their revenue sports have mostly sucked over the last century. For them to land in the Big 10 was a major coup for the school.
aTm had a good football season but let's see if they can keep it up. The SEC is a meat grinder and you can fall fast as the fans at Auburn and TN can attest. So the jury is still out on that one although I'm certain they have no regrets at this point with the conference cash their raking in.
And TX and OK, with no aTm and NE to worry about, should have a cake walk to the top 10 in fb every season even more than before.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2013 11:13 PM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
I don't think "winning" the realignment race is always about money. Take Utah for instance.....Once they were the darlings of the Non-AQ conferences. Two BCS wins including a dominating Sugar Bowl win over Alabama. What have they done since they joined the Pac 12? Absolutely nothing. No one even talks about them any more. They are completely irrelevant.
That's one thing that gets lost in this shuffle. Yeah the money's good, but you could fall off the face of the earth.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2013 11:37 PM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
Winning the realignment race is only about money. Otherwise, why would a team in Texas move to the SEC? Why would WVU move to the Big 12? How the heck does Maryland make more sense in the B1G than the ACC if not for the money? Boise St. was ready to move the Big East before the money dried up. The only way Boise St. is in the "east" is if you are standing in Oregon.
---------------------------------------------
--- yallreadyforthis wrote:
I don't think "winning" the realignment race is always about money. Take Utah for instance.....Once they were the darlings of the Non-AQ conferences. Two BCS wins including a dominating Sugar Bowl win over Alabama. What have they done since they joined the Pac 12? Absolutely nothing. No one even talks about them any more. They are completely irrelevant.
That's one thing that gets lost in this shuffle. Yeah the money's good, but you could fall off the face of the earth.
---------------------------------------------
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2013 6:54 AM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
That's my point. Did you really win if your paycheck increases, but you become completely irrelevant? The fans will eventually become apathetic because you're not winning anything. This may happen to WV in the Big 12 and Maryland in the Big 10. Maryland was already starting to slide even before this move.
---------------------------------------------
--- bartholemew wrote:
Winning the realignment race is only about money. Otherwise, why would a team in Texas move to the SEC? Why would WVU move to the Big 12? How the heck does Maryland make more sense in the B1G than the ACC if not for the money? Boise St. was ready to move the Big East before the money dried up. The only way Boise St. is in the "east" is if you are standing in Oregon.
---------------------------------------------
--- yallreadyforthis wrote:
I don't think "winning" the realignment race is always about money. Take Utah for instance.....Once they were the darlings of the Non-AQ conferences. Two BCS wins including a dominating Sugar Bowl win over Alabama. What have they done since they joined the Pac 12? Absolutely nothing. No one even talks about them any more. They are completely irrelevant.
That's one thing that gets lost in this shuffle. Yeah the money's good, but you could fall off the face of the earth.
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2013 7:20 AM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
---------------------------------------------
--- TennesseeVolSEC wrote:
Since those teams were already in some sort of conference and weren't really absorbed by 'expansion', how do you not say Texas A&M made a grand slam move?
---------------------------------------------
From what I understand, Texas A&M actually received LESS money from the 2012 CBS/ESPN media contract with the SEC than the Big 12 schools. That's obviously going to change in the near future when the SEC renegotiates with ESPN and CBS, but it will be 2-3 years before they make up for what they have lost.
There are actually other things besides money that could be viewed as a negative for the move. They severely damaged their rivalries with Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, OU, Okie State, e.g. and only gained the old rivalry with Arkansas and maintained their rivalry with Missouri. They aren't quite on the island that WVU is, but College Station is pretty distant from the rest of the SEC. As others have said, one good season is nice, but that alone is not enough to make me feel that they are the biggest winner. Do you really think aTm improved their position (all things considered, both short term and long term) more than a school like Rutgers? I would actually argue that Missouri improved their position more than aTm.
I DO think that long-term, being in the SEC will be better for them, but short-term, there are others who have actually improved their situation MUCH more. Long-term, any move from the Big East to one of the big leagues (for example) has to be viewed as a larger win for that school, any move from a non-BCS league to a BCS league has to be considered a larger win as well, etc. aTm to the SEC will be a net win for the Aggies, but I don't think they are even in the top five of BIGGEST winners.
ETA that impact could be due to other schools leaving a conference and having a direct effect on a school's position.
Last edited 2/27/2013 7:50 AM by CornbreadandCollards
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2013 8:46 AM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
Forbes had a decent article that speaks of the magic of 2012 in Aggieland. From Johnny Football to increased market penetration as an SEC member, A&M saw saw increases in booster donations, enrollment, and merchandise sales. www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/20...e-power-of-one/Granted they lost rivalries with the Texas schools, but they were also being tired of Texas dictating conference direction in direction not in A&M's best interests. The OU/OSU rivalries are not longstanding as those were old Big 8 schools, not Southwest Conference Schools. Like you said, A&M rekindled the Arkansas rivalry but also added natural rival LSU. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2013 9:13 AM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
Rutgers has historically been an athletic joke, but now they can laugh all the way to the bank.
aTm seems to have made the right move. Others remain to be seen. WVU jumped too quickly.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2013 9:35 AM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
How much of that was due to the move to the SEC though? Missouri moved to the SEC and didn't see this increase in market penetration. Or did they? I honestly have no idea how to judge that. They lost some market but gained some as well? Maybe Missouri saw increases in booster donations, enrollment, merchandise sales, etc. also? I don't know. I know that Johnny Manziel didn't happen BECAUSE they went to the SEC though. But even if ALL of aTm's 2012 success was directly attributable to the move to the SEC, I would think there are other schools who improved their position more. It obviously depends on what you use as criteria and how you go about defining improvement, but Rutgers was dead in the water and now is on the course to flourish. If aTm had not made the move, they still would have been alright. I agree with others who feel that we need to re-evaluate aTm in a few years and see if this success in 2012 was really due to being in the SEC or was it just a coincidence. Perhaps it's both, but the whole logic of moving to a tougher football league in the SEC and having an immediate higher level of success doesn't jive with me. If it is a win, I would argue that it is more of a long-term win for aTm than a short term one. Can't argue with the increased booster donations, merch sales, and enrollment though. Those are strong points. --------------------------------------------- --- Mike4UK wrote: Forbes had a decent article that speaks of the magic of 2012 in Aggieland. From Johnny Football to increased market penetration as an SEC member, A&M saw saw increases in booster donations, enrollment, and merchandise sales. www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/20...e-power-of-one/Granted they lost rivalries with the Texas schools, but they were also being tired of Texas dictating conference direction in direction not in A&M's best interests. The OU/OSU rivalries are not longstanding as those were old Big 8 schools, not Southwest Conference Schools. Like you said, A&M rekindled the Arkansas rivalry but also added natural rival LSU. ---------------------------------------------
Last edited 2/27/2013 9:51 AM by CornbreadandCollards
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2013 9:48 AM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
---------------------------------------------
--- CornbreadandCollards wrote:
Johnny Manziel didn't happen BECAUSE they went to the SEC though.
---------------------------------------------
I respectfully disagree. Manziel happened because the Aggies thumped the might 'Bama defense.
Had they not been in the SEC, that (nationally televised) game against the reigning (and repeating) national champion would not have happened.
And don't discount the power the SEC and ESPN had in marketing "Johnny Football". When those two entities decide to push the wagon in the same directions, they make things happen.
All that being said, Rutgers was Winner #1.
They could be collecting about $1.8MM annually for perpetuity and instead find themselves looking at revenue of more than $25MM per annum for simply being located next to Pennsylvania and Maryland!!
Last edited 2/27/2013 9:51 AM by jimmydaheel
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2013 10:02 AM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
I am uncomfortable with attributing his success (at least all of it) to simply being in the SEC. That seems very obtuse considering Colin Klein's season and his appearance on Gameday and at the Heisman award ceremony.
Yeah, maybe it was more pronounced because it was an SEC guy, but there was a guy from Kansas freakin' State in the Heisman finalists also for beating Big 12 teams. The SEC hype machine is real, don't think I am arguing that it might not have factored in. But it certainly was not the only thing that caused Manziel to happen. If they weren't beating Alabama, they would have been beating whoever it was that Colin Klein was beating.
I think Manziel would be VERY special and would be receiving nearly all of the same accolades that he is receiving if the Aggies had stayed in the Big 12, but maybe there is some truth to what you are saying and I should add "entirely" to the portion of my post which you quoted.
---------------------------------------------
--- jimmydaheel wrote:
---------------------------------------------
--- CornbreadandCollards wrote:
Johnny Manziel didn't happen BECAUSE they went to the SEC though.
---------------------------------------------
I respectfully disagree. Manziel happened because the Aggies thumped the might 'Bama defense.
Had they not been in the SEC, that (nationally televised) game against the reigning (and repeating) national champion would not have happened.
And don't discount the power the SEC and ESPN had in marketing "Johnny Football". When those two entities decide to push the wagon in the same directions, they make things happen.
All that being said, Rutgers was Winner #1.
They could be collecting about $1.8MM annually for perpetuity and instead find themselves looking at revenue of more than $25MM per annum for simply being located next to Pennsylvania and Maryland!!
---------------------------------------------
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2013 10:08 AM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
This West Virginia is a cautionary tale. Geography matters. Wait til the Maryland women's soccer team has to make the haul to go play in Iowa, or their basketball team flies out to Nebraska for a midweek hoops game.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2013 10:53 AM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
---------------------------------------------
--- Soulbrothernumber1 wrote:
---------------------------------------------
--- WesternStormer wrote:
A&M was the biggest winner. No doubt about it.
---------------------------------------------
No, it was definitely Rutgers considering their revenue sports have mostly sucked over the last century. For them to land in the Big 10 was a major coup for the school.
---------------------------------------------
I agree that they were the biggest winner, but I wouldn't call it a coup by Rutgers. They were the obvious choice for both the Big and the ACC due to size of school, location, only DI football in state, large wealthy state, resources, largest market in the country. The fact that people don't see that underscores how little they understand about this (their athletic accomplishments to date are irrelevant because their potential is through the roof. that fact notwithstanding, they have also made huge strides with regards to football). The coup was in the Big getting them (and MD) and effectively cutting the ACC in half and ruining our long term plan. The ACC should have snagged Rutgers earlier.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2013 11:01 AM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
Pitt, Rutgers, WVU and Syracuse all would have been better selections in the 2004 round of ACC expansion than BC.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2013 12:06 PM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
Actually then BC was a better overall in basketball/football than Rutgers. Rutgers was horrible back then. BC was going to bowl games and the NCAA Tournament every year. It wouldn't have made sense at that time.
---------------------------------------------
--- CornbreadandCollards wrote:
Pitt, Rutgers, WVU and Syracuse all would have been better selections in the 2004 round of ACC expansion than BC.
---------------------------------------------
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2013 12:27 PM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
---------------------------------------------
--- Soulbrothernumber1 wrote:
And TX and OK, with no aTm and NE to worry about, should have a cake walk to the top 10 in fb every season even more than before.
---------------------------------------------
I can only speak for Texas but......we suck now.
However, when A&M and Nebraska were in the Big 12, they really didn't matter. Texas dominated A&M and beat Nebraska 9 out of the 10 times they played. Those schools leaving had an economic impact relative to the networks but their exit didn't affect football in the least.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2013 1:12 PM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
It's impossible to judge the long-term benefits after one or two seasons. This topic truly requires at least 7 to 10 years to gauge the real impact of conference realignment. Heck, even the short-term moves are hard to judge.
Take for example TAMU. Many people are pointing to the SEC move as the cause of their recent surge, but I question the logic of that. Consider these factors:
- Sumlin was a new first year coach who did something the previous regime couldn't do, hold a lead. The 2011 Aggies were arguably the the best first-half and worst second-half team in the country. Should the SEC schedule get more credit for that turn around than Sumlin?
- Johnny Football won the Heisman, and everyone points out the big Alabama win as the turning point. I don't disagree, but had the Aggies been playing the BIG12 schedule they might have gone undefeated. Would an undefeated Manziel putting up similar numbers in the BIG12 have garnered Heisman consideration? I think so and thus I believe he would have won the Heisman if TAMU had never moved.
- The Longhorns are undeniably in a down period, and it can easily be traced to Mack Brown staying longer than he should have. Bobby Bowden did it, Frank Beamer is doing it, and Mack Brown is doing it too. When Texas gets a hot new coach (think Chip Kelly after he flames out in Philly), expect the Longhorns to climb back on top within the state of Texas. TAMUs fortunes will change once that happens.
- Had the Aggies stayed in the BIG12, they probably go undefeated. Would an undefeated regular season in the BIG12 be worth more than a two-loss season in the SEC? I honestly don't know. But if they beat Bama in the regular season, I can't help but think that they might have beaten the Tide in the championship game as well. Ask any TAMU fan if they'd rather have a national title even if it meant staying in the BIG12 and I suspect most would have preferred that. The SEC move might have ultimately prevented a shot at the title, and that's not a good short term affect.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2013 2:33 PM
Re: Expansion: winners and losers
Rutgers. On their rivals board one of their contributors uses the following tag line: "The Big East died and Rutgers went to football heaven" Indeed.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2013 5:09 PM
Re: Expansion: winners and losers
---------------------------------------------
--- SteveVA2 wrote:
Rutgers. On their rivals board one of their contributors uses the following tag line: "The Big East died and Rutgers went to football heaven" Indeed.
---------------------------------------------
Tis better to suck hind teat in the Big 10 than in the Big East.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2013 5:23 PM
Re: Expansion: winners and losers
As a Louisville Cardinal fan, I have to say that we were the biggest winner. We found our dream conference that not only values academics, but also gives us a fantastic home for our competitive olympic sports, football and basketball. We just wish we could play in the ACC next year. So if Maryland could please pay up, we'd be very grateful.
I feel that West Virginia is the biggest loser in realignment. They may make more money in the future, but their average fans will have trouble ever seeing another away game.
Last edited 2/27/2013 5:24 PM by StrongGatorCard
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2013 6:02 PM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
As an Aggie fan, I can tell you I would have wanted the SEC at equal or even somewhat reduced $$. Regarding rivalries, many Aggies are excited about the resumption of the series against LSU. Coming into the season, we'd played the Tigers 50 times, and their location in Louisiana provides a natural rivalry. We aren't playing Baylor or Tech anymore, but frankly, UT was the only game that held any real connection. UT will eventually be willing to play again, probably when AD Deloss Dodds retires. But if they don't, the fact that we play Bama, Auburn, LSU, Arkansas, and South Carolina (who will be our designated East rival, not Mizzou) every year more than makes up for it.
From a recruiting standpoint, we have a pitch that no one else in the area has: If you want to play football in the best conference in the nation, come to A&M.
So I'd say that joining the SEC at least provides the OPPORTUNITY to emerge as one of the biggest winners of realignment. Whether we take advantage of that opportunity remains to be seen.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2013 8:41 PM
Re: Expansion: winners and losers
Deadeye Dirk,
I'm on A&M's site (www.texags.com) all the time....best site of all the sports boards I visit. You will quickly find out that 90% off all Aggies would rather be in the SEC with two losses than to stay in the B12 and win it all. I can't fathom wanting to move, or stay, in a cream puff league just for the sake of hoping that scenario will provide easy wins, thereby, providing a launching pad for national title appearances on a regular basis. Look what that hypothesis has done for Florida State.
I firmly believe A&M will entrench themselves as THE school in Texas within five years. Yes, they are THE school right now but I think it will stay that way on a consistent basis after that short period of time. The majority of elite athletes want to be in the SEC. Texas will get some good ones, too, but A&M will rule. Mark it down.
Rutgers has jumped into a windfall for sure. I agree wholeheartedly but the biggest impact of all moves will be felt in Texas.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2013 8:56 PM
Re: Expansion: winners and losers
FSU did quite well the first 9 years in the ACC. 2 National titles and 9 years of top 5 finishes. Who knew they were going to fall apart and Bowden hanging on too long. If you look at the trajectory, FSU began to decline right after Mark Richt left to take the UGA job. Now Jimbo is starting to get them back again.
SEC hasn't always been this dominant. That's really only been in the last 10 years.
---------------------------------------------
--- TennesseeVolSEC wrote:
Deadeye Dirk,
I'm on A&M's site (www.texags.com) all the time....best site of all the sports boards I visit. You will quickly find out that 90% off all Aggies would rather be in the SEC with two losses than to stay in the B12 and win it all. I can't fathom wanting to move, or stay, in a cream puff league just for the sake of hoping that scenario will provide easy wins, thereby, providing a launching pad for national title appearances on a regular basis. Look what that hypothesis has done for Florida State.
---------------------------------------------
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2013 11:28 PM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
---------------------------------------------
--- ProfessorSmith wrote:
---------------------------------------------
--- Soulbrothernumber1 wrote:
No, it was definitely Rutgers considering their revenue sports have mostly sucked over the last century. For them to land in the Big 10 was a major coup for the school.
---------------------------------------------
I agree that they were the biggest winner, but I wouldn't call it a coup by Rutgers. They were the obvious choice for both the Big and the ACC due to size of school, location, only DI football in state, large wealthy state, resources, largest market in the country. The fact that people don't see that underscores how little they understand about this (their athletic accomplishments to date are irrelevant because their potential is through the roof. that fact notwithstanding, they have also made huge strides with regards to football). The coup was in the Big getting them (and MD) and effectively cutting the ACC in half and ruining our long term plan. The ACC should have snagged Rutgers earlier.
---------------------------------------------
Sorry but without a cable network Rutgers would not have been some cash cow for the ACC just like they weren't for the Big East. The B10 has its eyes on all those TV sets for its cable network, plain and simple, and it remains to be seen if the plan will even work.
Rutgers athletics actually waters down the B10 sports brand as their bball is garbage and it's fb will not finish in the top 25 very often playing a B10 schedule.
So considering the long-term prospects for RU athletics I'd say they made off like bandits getting in the B10. From an athletics standpoint they just don't fit.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2013 11:35 PM
Re: Expansion: winners and losers
---------------------------------------------
--- TennesseeVolSEC wrote:
Deadeye Dirk,
I'm on A&M's site (www.texags.com) all the time....best site of all the sports boards I visit. You will quickly find out that 90% off all Aggies would rather be in the SEC with two losses than to stay in the B12 and win it all. I can't fathom wanting to move, or stay, in a cream puff league just for the sake of hoping that scenario will provide easy wins, thereby, providing a launching pad for national title appearances on a regular basis. Look what that hypothesis has done for Florida State.
I firmly believe A&M will entrench themselves as THE school in Texas within five years. Yes, they are THE school right now but I think it will stay that way on a consistent basis after that short period of time. The majority of elite athletes want to be in the SEC. Texas will get some good ones, too, but A&M will rule. Mark it down.
Rutgers has jumped into a windfall for sure. I agree wholeheartedly but the biggest impact of all moves will be felt in Texas.
---------------------------------------------
Fair enough, perhaps the average TAMU fan is thoroughly pleased with the SEC. I won't argue that point.
But you still have to take the long term view before evaluating the move. Manziel will leave TAMU. Mack Brown will leave UT. Sumlin might also seek greener pastures if the Aggies get another top 5 finish. My point is that things change, and the Aggies cannot undo decades of being second fiddle in Texas in one or two short seasons. This question will require close to a decade of observation to answer.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2013 9:15 AM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
"They got a name for the winners of the world
I want a name when I lose
They call Alabama the Crimson Tide
Call me Deacon blues..." -Steely Dan
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2013 4:31 PM
Re: Expansion: winners and losers
when does U of L come into the ACC for football schedules????
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2013 7:03 PM
Re: Expansion: winners and losers
---------------------------------------------
--- Getitout wrote:
when does U of L come into the ACC for football schedules????
---------------------------------------------
As it stands now, we join in Football the fall of 2014.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2013 7:38 AM
Re: Expansion: winners and losers
---------------------------------------------
--- TennesseeVolSEC wrote:
Deadeye Dirk,
I'm on A&M's site (www.texags.com) all the time....best site of all the sports boards I visit. You will quickly find out that 90% off all Aggies would rather be in the SEC with two losses than to stay in the B12 and win it all. I can't fathom wanting to move, or stay, in a cream puff league just for the sake of hoping that scenario will provide easy wins, thereby, providing a launching pad for national title appearances on a regular basis. Look what that hypothesis has done for Florida State.
I firmly believe A&M will entrench themselves as THE school in Texas within five years. Yes, they are THE school right now but I think it will stay that way on a consistent basis after that short period of time. The majority of elite athletes want to be in the SEC. Texas will get some good ones, too, but A&M will rule. Mark it down.
Rutgers has jumped into a windfall for sure. I agree wholeheartedly but the biggest impact of all moves will be felt in Texas.
---------------------------------------------
Winners talk up their team; losers talk up their conference.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2013 11:05 AM
Re: Expansion: winners and losers
yes, Rutgers is likely the biggest winner...
but the most interesting question for me is the long term impact on the B1G...
if there was a financial basket case in the ACC it was Md...
Rutgers had more than a century of athletic irrelevance...
put simply, Delaney was only able to grasp the lowest hanging fruit...
it isn't at all clear that these were winning moves...
and if neither steps up to start winning the B1G, particularly in football, but any sport for that matter, then they aren't going to substantially increase college sports fans' interest in the B1G...
they are just 2 more mouths to feed until they show some real impact on that broadcast revenue stream...
so if you believe that there was some broadcasting exec who was excited about the prospect of adding these 2 to the existing product then it's clear that it was a good move...
but if it doesn't alter the revenue stream from that network more than enough to offset the additional number splitting the pie, then it looks more like a desperate attempt to shake the tree in the hope that better, higher hanging fruit will drop...
it's too early to tell what the impact will be, but I can't believe anyone was excited about the prospect of adding Md or Rutgers to the B1G except for the folks at those 2 schools, and many of Md's alums were clearly not happy about it...
in my mind this was clearly a move by Delaney hoping to trigger other, larger moves, in an attempt to speed up what he sees as the end game in conference expansion...
had we not recently experienced that NCAA scandal in football there might be some chance that the folks in South Building would be listening...
as it is, that seems far less likely...
if those 2 additions don't wind up causing major changes in college sports, generally, then Rutgers won biggest, but at the expense of the existing members of the B1G...
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2013 2:23 PM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
Big loser in the realignment is East Carolina. They finally got into the Big East(or whatever it is going to be called now) for football and now the Big East is falling apart.
Big winner will be ACC when Maryland has to pay up while gaining a better athletic school in Louisville.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2013 3:24 PM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
At least they're not Idaho, who has to go independent now.
---------------------------------------------
--- HammHeel wrote:
Big loser in the realignment is East Carolina. They finally got into the Big East(or whatever it is going to be called now) for football and now the Big East is falling apart.
Big winner will be ACC when Maryland has to pay up while gaining a better athletic school in Louisville.
---------------------------------------------
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2013 4:13 PM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
ECU? But they weren't really in the mix before expansion and now they still they aren't, right? Seems like very little change to me. Unless you feel that their move to the Big East really was going to put them on equal footing with the ACC. And the Big East that had invited ECU had no WVU, no Syracuse, and no Pitt...and maybe no Rutgers? Can't remember. What has fallen apart with the Big East since ECU joined?
I'm not sure I articulated what I meant by winner vs. loser. I guess I was trying to see what folks thought were the biggest net changes (or the biggest anticipated change once all the realigning actually occurs) from their original stance prior to the most recent rounds of expansion. To me, ECU has really made a zero net change by moving from CUSA in football to this Big East in football (which is really just a CUSA type league now).
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2013 5:08 PM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
I agree with you on ECU. They will never be up to ACC standard, but there only hope for them for years was to join the Big East way before the recent changes.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2013 5:25 PM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
at least 2 recent changes to BE are not happening...
SDSU and Boise have elected to remain in the MWC, rather than go through with their move to the BE...
something about schools west of some point in the US (the Rockies?), had to happen to trigger their obligation to follow through on that move to the BE, and since it did not they had a loophole to get out...
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2013 6:37 PM
RE: Expansion: winners and losers
---------------------------------------------
--- HammHeel wrote:
I agree with you on ECU. They will never be up to ACC standard, but there only hope for them for years was to join the Big East way before the recent changes.
---------------------------------------------
ECU should have gotten a BE invite before now. They would have been competitive in football right off the bat, and, they would have been the best baseball program in the conference from the get go.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
