Conference Realignment Thread v. 2016

[GumbyDamnit!]

Postby GoldenWarrior11 » Tue Dec 27, 2016 10:23 am

Noble commentary, JP. Unfortunately, the Big East will not lower its conference standards simply to stack the deck for the league to possibly get an additional team or two into the tournament.

The B1G has done this over and over...Penn St, Rutgers, Nebraska. The ACC added BC, to go along with their regular bottom dwellers. PAC-12 added Colorado. It's happening all over in Basketball for the sake of Football gaining a team or 2. What's so different in the BE emulating our major brethren to work the system?

We average 5 teams a year for the NCAAs. What is sooo terrible in milking the bids for 7 a year? That's an extra 500,000 to 600,000 USD/year (by 2020) for 6 years. That's free money we're talking about. It's insurance money...doesn't cost the conference a dime. I never heard of Jesuits walking away from a dollar, especially a free one!

BC was not a bad basketball program when the ACC recruited them. In fact they went to the tournament in back to back seasons, the 2 years before they ACC came calling and were BE champs and a top ten team in 2001. After they were in voted to join the ACC, they went to the tournament 5 of the next 6 years and were a top ten team again in their first season in the ACC. They've fallen on hard times in recent years, but that's been due more to the ill advised decision to fire Al Skinner and poor hiring choices with the 2 coaches that followed him.

BC is a perfect example of the fallacy in Scmack'a argument. There are no guarantees that any program will continue to be either a winner or a loser. St John's, for example, was one of the best and most consistent programs in college basketball for 50 years. They've declined in the last 10-12 years, but who could have predicted that? OTOH, Butler was a nobody in college basketball for as long as St John's was a somebody, but in the last 10-15 years, they've been a very consistent winner. Who ups have predicted back to back trips to the finals for them and that they would have come within a whisker of winning it all?

All a conference can do is bring in the best programs they can and hope for the best. Everyone will eventually have their ups and downs.

BC was a very good BE hoops program before they left. Michael Adams, Curley, D Barrows, Craig Smith, Troy Bell, J Bagley, Jared Dudley, etc.

PSU was a FB coup for the B1G. Their first year they went undefeated, had one of the most prolific offenses in college FB history and absolutely dominated the B1G. Nebraska is gifted the NC b/c it was Tom Osborne's swan song. They pulled them in when they were at their strongest. Rutgers mistakenly was believed to be bringing the NY market. That's the joke of it all. Good sell job by RU; poor understanding of the NY market (Pro FB town) by the Conf leaders.

[Devil's Advocate]

Off topic, but Osborne's final season was 97. In 94 Nebraska was the National Champion because they were really good, and probably got more votes than PSU because Penn St.'s defense was poor.

[Bill Marsh]

Off topic, but Osborne's final season was 97. In 94 Nebraska was the National Champion because they were really good, and probably got more votes than PSU because Penn St.'s defense was poor.

Nebraska won a share of the national title in Osborne's final season by beating Tennessee in the Orange Bowl for the Bowl Alliance championship and by winning the coaches' poll (UPI). That was back in the stupid days of the 20th century when college football had no vehicle for determining its champion on the field.

[Bluejay]

No school has been hurt more by the demise of the old Big East than UConn.

This is probably true, but most of their wounds are self inflicted.

UConn fell for fools gold when it had a little football success (in what was, if we are completely honest, a bad football conference). In retrospect, UConn hurt their hoops program's long term prospects by falling for the football bug.

By suing (or leading the threats to do so) the schools that were the initial BE departures to the ACC, UConn created long term bad blood that worked against them when they sought out ACC membership themselves.

Yes, UConn has suffered. However, they are hardly innocent bystanders.

[GumbyDamnit!]

Off topic, but Osborne's final season was 97. In 94 Nebraska was the National Champion because they were really good, and probably got more votes than PSU because Penn St.'s defense was poor.

You are right that it wasn't Osbourne's swan song but it was his 1st NC. And absolutely that was a very good Nebraska team. The sentiment in PA was that he was given some consideration because of the fact that he was a great coach and had never won a NC. And no the PSU Def was not "poor" at all. Results below vs the ranked teams they faced that year:

#14 USC - 38-14
@ # 5 Michigan - 31-24
# 21 OSU - 63-14
# 12 Oregon (Rose Bowl) - 38-20

That team averaged 48.7 pts per game and scored quickly. Their D was on the field for a lot of possessions. So averaging 18 PPG against them vs the best teams they played is not poor IMO. It has always been some sour grapes for PSU fans b/c it was the 4th time that PSU went undefeated and were denied the NC (Pres Nixon of all people declared Texas NC one year when PSU and Texas were both undefeated). So, full disclosure as a long time PSU FB fan, there are def some feelings of being slighted in the process before.

It would have been a lot of fun seeing those teams meet in '94. Another reason why the Playoff system change was so important.

[Bill Marsh]

No school has been hurt more by the demise of the old Big East than UConn.

This is probably true, but most of their wounds are self inflicted.

UConn fell for fools gold when it had a little football success (in what was, if we are completely honest, a bad football conference). In retrospect, UConn hurt their hoops program's long term prospects by falling for the football bug.

By suing (or leading the threats to do so) the schools that were the initial BE departures to the ACC, UConn created long term bad blood that worked against them when they sought out ACC membership themselves.

Yes, UConn has suffered. However, they are hardly innocent bystanders.

They were hardly in the lawsuit by themselves. And there's no evidence at this point that their basketball program has been hurt by the decision to add football.

As for fool's gold, it worked for Rutgers, a team that was 1-11 and drew only 19,000 fans at home as recently as 2002. And that season was no exception. They were a program that never mattered in the history of college football or in the Big East before UConn joined the football conference, and so were more or less at the same point back then.

[stever20]

part of what hurt Penn St that year was the Big Ten was kind of off compared to normal, while the Big 8 had the 3rd best team in Colorado along with Nebraska- and Kansas St was also pretty good.

Ohio St finished only 9-4 at 12 and Michigan at 8-4 at 14. USC and Oregon were 13 and 11 at 8-3-1 and 9-4. So best teams 11,12,13,14.

Colorado was 11-1 and 3rd, and Kansas St was 9-3 and 18th. And then Miami in the bowl game was 10-2 and finished 6th. So best teams 3,6,18. And Colorado really helped Nebraska as they beat Notre Dame pretty good in the Fiesta Bowl 41-24.

It would have been fun to see Nebraska and Penn St that season.

The consideration that Nebraska got was they were 11-1 the prior year, losing to FSU in the title game. Penn St was really good the year before but not quite that good(10-2)..

[DudeAnon]

No school has been hurt more by the demise of the old Big East than UConn.

This is probably true, but most of their wounds are self inflicted.

UConn fell for fools gold when it had a little football success (in what was, if we are completely honest, a bad football conference). In retrospect, UConn hurt their hoops program's long term prospects by falling for the football bug.

By suing (or leading the threats to do so) the schools that were the initial BE departures to the ACC, UConn created long term bad blood that worked against them when they sought out ACC membership themselves.

Yes, UConn has suffered. However, they are hardly innocent bystanders.

They were hardly in the lawsuit by themselves. And there's no evidence at this point that their basketball program has been hurt by the decision to add football.

As for fool's gold, it worked for Rutgers, a team that was 1-11 and drew only 19,000 fans at home as recently as 2002. And that season was no exception. They were a program that never mattered in the history of college football or in the Big East before UConn joined the football conference, and so were more or less at the same point back then.

I literally do not follow College Football one iota, but hasn't Rutgers football been around forever whereas UCONN just started their program like 15 years ago?

[GoldenWarrior11]

Many like to compare Rutgers and UConn within the realignment process, and while both schools do have similar comparisons in some regards (Northeast schools, former Big East schools, weak football programs), there are most definitely criteria that bumped and elevated Rutgers over UConn for the Big Ten expansion in 2011. For starters, Rutgers is an AAU school, a major requirement for acceptance into the B1G. While Nebraska is no longer an AAU member, they were when they were invited, and there are even quotes from prominent officials stating had Nebraska not been AAU, they were unlikely to be accepted in 2010. The B1G values academics at a high level, and while Rutgers has an overall weak athletics program - both current and historical - they brought the AAU label with them when they were invited, something UConn did not and does not have.

Rutgers, similar to UConn, but larger in size and state, is a national land grant university. Rutgers has over a $1 billion in endowment - over double that of UConn. They exceed them in alumni and student enrollment. They also have a much stronger recruiting area than UConn, as New Jersey is a rich and fertile area for basketball and football - just look at Michigan and Jabrill Peppers.

Finally, Rutgers allowed the B1G to market itself and gain access to the NJ/NY market for the B1G channel and content. Fans can argue until the apocalypse that Rutgers isn't a New York team, but the reality is that their new TV contract and exposure says otherwise. Along with Maryland, the B1G started to be shown in homes in New York City and Washington D.C. (thanks to Maryland), and allowed them to have the richest and most lucrative TV deal in history with both ESPN and Fox, thanks to the newfound access that Rutgers and Maryland allowed.

This is why Rutgers was a home run addition to the B1G, and why UConn will never be a member of the B1G. UConn does not meet the requirements for admission into the B1G (AAU), nor do they bring a large and contiguous state, nor would they would bring any additional bump in exposure or media money as the B1G's TV deal already accounts for New York/Northeast.

The long-term affect of B1G members - including and eventually Nebraska/Maryland/Rutgers - earning nearly $50 million annually for their conference affiliation and TV deals, and UConn only making $1.7 million as part of the AAC/ESPN deal, the reality of football programs being left behind and left for dead is very real. Add in the fact that Penn State, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Boston College, St. Johns, Villanova, Georgetown, Seton Hall and Providence all will be making more in TV money for the foreseeable future, and the expected outcome for UConn athletics (but mostly just football) is bleak to say the least.

[Bill Marsh]

This is probably true, but most of their wounds are self inflicted.

UConn fell for fools gold when it had a little football success (in what was, if we are completely honest, a bad football conference). In retrospect, UConn hurt their hoops program's long term prospects by falling for the football bug.

By suing (or leading the threats to do so) the schools that were the initial BE departures to the ACC, UConn created long term bad blood that worked against them when they sought out ACC membership themselves.

Yes, UConn has suffered. However, they are hardly innocent bystanders.

They were hardly in the lawsuit by themselves. And there's no evidence at this point that their basketball program has been hurt by the decision to add football.

As for fool's gold, it worked for Rutgers, a team that was 1-11 and drew only 19,000 fans at home as recently as 2002. And that season was no exception. They were a program that never mattered in the history of college football or in the Big East before UConn joined the football conference, and so were more or less at the same point back then.

I literally do not follow College Football one iota, but hasn't Rutgers football been around forever whereas UCONN just started their program like 15 years ago?

Rutgers likes to talk about the fact that they played the first ever college football game back in 1869 against Princeton. What they don't like to talk about is that 25 years they dropped the sport for 20 years. after starting up again or a decade in 1914, they dropped it again for another 20 years between the wars. So, their continuous competition in college football has only been since 1946. They really did nothing in the sport before 2005, going to only one bowl game in their entire history up until then. That one bowl was the Garden State Bowl, created specifically for them. They hosted the first one and were never invited back again.

UCOnn has competed in college football since 1897, restricting itself primarily to competition in New England where the Ivy League was king - especially in football - for a very long time. During its time in the Yankee Conference, UConn won or shared 13 conference titles in football. In 1978, Dicision one subdivided into I-A and I-AA. DOR 20 years UConn was content to be in I-AA until they decide to upgrade for the purpose of joining Big East Football.

It's not like UConn doesn't have a history in football, they just didn't compete in big time football although they were in Division I. But frankly the difference between that and Rutgers' history is a distinction without a difference. To illustrate the point There is the history of the Lambert Trophy, awarded annually to the top team in Eastern (Northeast) college football annually since 1936. Rutgers won its only Lambert Troohy in 1914. UConn had won it 4 years earlier.

While Rutgers was doing nothing to distinguish itself in college football, the Lambert Trophy was being won by the likes of the service academies [Army (7) and Navy (6)],the Ivies [Dartmouth (2), Princeton (2), Cornell (1), and Yale (1)], Fordham, and Carnegie Tech in addition to the usual suspects like Penn State, Pitt, Syracuse, BC, and West Virginia. In other words, there was plenty of opportunity for them to distinguish themselves at some point if they were any good.

There was absolutely nothing to make Rutgers' football history attractive before the last decade or so. They were picked by the B1G strictly because they are the flagship university of a state with 9 million people and are located in the largest metro area in the country. They have no competition in college football in either NJ or in NYC.