Conference carousel to start spinning again?

[Xville]

What programs are actually better because of realignment?? And of those programs that are better, how many of them joined overly bloated leagues??

Not many schools are actually all that much better off. Certainly some are.

-Xavier absolutely is.

-I'd say Louisville was better off when they joined the Big East, and then joined the ACC. So we can even count them twice

-Cincinnati is certainly better in the Big 12.

-So is BYU.

-So is TCU. In fact they've probably been the biggest benefactors of it hands down.

-Rutgers?? In basketball...yeah. I mean they actually finally made an NCAA Tournament (but did little more than that) In football...no.

Am I missing anyone?????

-Maybe Texas A&M? But I'd say they're actually about the same. If anything they seemed to be participants in major bowls back when major bowls meant something more often as Big 8/Big12 members

-Missouri nearly went to the national championship game as a Big12 member. I think basketball wise they were better in the Big 12. If not, then it was clearly a lot more fun.

-Nebraska has never been as strong in the Big Ten as they were in the Big 8 and Big 12. Not even close, really.

-Colorado won a national championship and had more major bowl appearances in the Big 12

-Virginia Tech's best days were in the Big East (although they've had some good basketball teams, that was largely due to Buzz more than anything else)

-So were Miami FL's (although to be fair they've been much better in basketball since joining the ACC, but Jim Larranaga is probably the biggest reason why).

-Syracuse has still been good in basketball, but probably not as good

-BC wasn't really all that good in either confernece, although they did at least have SOME good moments in the Big East

-Maryland was better in the ACC in both sports and had more fun and more interesting rivalry games



I mean...it seems like there is this initial feeling of intrigue and excitement, but once that wears off...MOST programs (not all) are at best the same, and usually worse off. Maryland realized playing Iowa and Minnesota isn't as much fun as playing Duke and Virginia. The "Give a Fuck" factor has gone way down.

Missouri fans don't seem to care as much about Vanderbilt, Georgia, and Florida as they did Kansas and Nebraska. Not even close, really. I remember when their arena was almost always full.

But...schools continue to move. And move. And move. And I really do think that sooner or later people are going to think "Wow...this really was dumb. Things were much better before!"

I’m from Missouri and a Missouri fan. The interest has just switched to football and the revenue is undeniable vs the big 12. Basketball will be back when the team is good. It’s been pretty bad since they joined the sec due to some horrible coaching hires, that’s the reason for the attendance problems, not the switch to the sec.

[xubrew]

I’m from Missouri and a Missouri fan. The interest has just switched to football and the revenue is undeniable vs the big 12. Basketball will be back when the team is good. It’s been pretty bad since they joined the sec due to some horrible coaching hires, that’s the reason for the attendance problems, not the switch to the sec.

I'm sure the revenue is better. But the football itself isn't. There was no overall substantial improvement, and while it would be clearly wrong to say there was a huge drop off, it would not be wrong to say that in the last ten years they were in the Big 12 they had more sustained success than they've had in the SEC. At least that's how it appears when you look at the polls. It is, AT BEST, the same...

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb...uri/index.html

[GoMuskies]

Mizzou got to pretend they were good in football this year due to overhyping in the preseason polls. Probably something to do with being in the SEC.

[MHettel]

Expansion is driven by football and by conference media deals. Speaking in terms of performance, the leagues aren't really any better after they expand. They're usually worse. Stability can be achieved if all the remaining schools agree to keep everything stable. The most stable conference in the country, by far, is the Ivy League, and they only have eight teams.

I dont understand this. "leagues arent better after they expand."

Its not about being "better." Its about existing. The SEC expanded when they raided the B12 years ago. Then they did it again with UT and OU.

The B10 raided the Pac10. Then the Big 12 took a bite of the Pac 12, and then the B10 took another.

The Pac 12 did nothing and it cost them their existence. And now instead of a semi respectable single West coast league made up of the best of the MWC and Pac 12, we have 2 worse conferences that need to supplement their rosters with lower teams that have no business playing at that level.

Expansion and consolidation has ALWAYS been in the cards. Conferences that sat around have paid the price.

I've been talking about BE expansion for probably 5 years or more, with the idea that we need to expand westward and pick up Gonzaga. That ship has sailed. The Big East did nothing, and our top program cant wait to leave.

[XUGRAD80]

How a school does on the field, or on the court, is not as important to the school as how it does financially. Schools are moving to where they can do the best financially. Xavier didn’t move out of the A10 to make their BB team better. Rutgers didn’t move to the B10 with the thought that their football team would be better because of the move. Texas and Oklahoma moved to the SEC for the money. Leagues invite schools because of what kind of financial impact they can have. Schools that already have a quality product that will draw interest, and TV viewers, to leagues are desirable because they will add to the monetary value of TV contracts and thus increase league revenues. So it is a give and take equation. But it’s really all driven by the money, not the competition. Stability is only important to some fans. Leagues, and schools, are far more concerned with doing what is best for them finacially.

[Xville]

I'm sure the revenue is better. But the football itself isn't. There was no overall substantial improvement, and while it would be clearly wrong to say there was a huge drop off, it would not be wrong to say that in the last ten years they were in the Big 12 they had more sustained success than they've had in the SEC. At least that's how it appears when you look at the polls. It is, AT BEST, the same...

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb...uri/index.html

Yes, overall the football isn't better, it is about the same as the last few years in the big 12. However, the interest (in football) and the money have both increased substantially since the move. They have already completed the South End Zone renovation and just announced a 250 million dollar north end zone renovation.

Basketball interest will return once they are stable and good again, the interest has little to do with the move to the SEC, it's that overall they have been really bad since the move. The move has been great for Mizzou overall

[Xville]

How a school does on the field, or on the court, is not as important to the school as how it does financially. Schools are moving to where they can do the best financially. Xavier didn’t move out of the A10 to make their BB team better. Rutgers didn’t move to the B10 with the thought that their football team would be better because of the move. Texas and Oklahoma moved to the SEC for the money. Leagues invite schools because of what kind of financial impact they can have. Schools that already have a quality product that will draw interest, and TV viewers, to leagues are desirable because they will add to the monetary value of TV contracts and thus increase league revenues. So it is a give and take equation. But it’s really all driven by the money, not the competition. Stability is only important to some fans. Leagues, and schools, are far more concerned with doing what is best for them finacially.

Yep, that's why i think adding programs like Memphis and SLU to the Big East in my mind would be a solid move. They are larger markets with a lot of eyeballs. IMO the Big East standing still is not a good move.

[Xville]

I know. The ten schools that aren't UConn can easily keep it from collapsing if they all really want to. It would be better to just keep those ten IF you knew that none of them were going to look to leave, or couldn't leave due to a grant of rights deal. The Big East won't collapse if the schools can agree not to leave. What I'm suggesting is that rather than expand, I think it'd be better to try and work toward an agreement among all ten schools that basically makes it incredibly difficult for anyone to leave.

I hate to use the word never, but IMO that is never going to happen again, not after what the ACC is going thru. Yeah its keep them together for a while, but its also created a whole lot of friction and animosity. Not necessarily healthy for the league.

[GoMuskies]

Yep, that's why i think adding programs like Memphis and SLU to the Big East in my mind would be a solid move. They are larger markets with a lot of eyeballs. IMO the Big East standing still is not a good move.

Explain to me like I'm a child how adding SLU and Memphis (who's never giving up on football, so this is a pipe dream anyway) help make the Big East more stable? UConn is going to leave if they can find a good home for football. We know that. You're aftraid, it seems, that other Big East teams might be interested in an invite from the Big XII or ACC or whatever if they decide to invite basketball only members. I don't see it, but okay. Do you think those teams would choose to stay if Memphis and SLU were in the league? That would sway their decision?

I just don't see what adding anyone who's available right now does for the Big East other than make it weaker.

[Xville]

Explain to me like I'm a child how adding SLU and Memphis (who's never giving up on football, so this is a pipe dream anyway) help make the Big East more stable? UConn is going to leave if they can find a good home for football. We know that. You're aftraid, it seems, that other Big East teams might be interested in an invite from the Big XII or ACC or whatever if they decide to invite basketball only members. I don't see it, but okay. Do you think those teams would choose to stay if Memphis and SLU were in the league? That would sway their decision?

I just don't see what adding anyone who's available right now does for the Big East other than make it weaker.

Slu and Memphis are bigger markets with a lot of eyeballs...have Memphis join as a basketball only member. I think this would only increase revenues in terms of renegotiating a tv contract that to me dollars wise was just ok.

I don't think that adding those teams is going to get the others to stay but if they do, at least we have a few extra teams to keep the conference intact. I wouldn't rule out that if the big 12 does add UCONN one day, that they wouldn't go after a Memphis or another team that would be enticing.

My main point is that with the college sports landscape right now, only having 11 teams with 1 team halfway out the door, is a little scary...especially when there aren't a whole lot of programs left that would be any way shape or form desirable for the Big East.

I don't see how adding either or both of these teams hurts in the Big East in anyway, I'd have to think that would reopen TV negotiations, and revenues would be equal per school or maybe even better.