|
Post by lynchmob42 on Aug 1, 2013 7:22:01 GMT -5
What has it gotten us? Who's in a significantly better position?
The biggest winners to me, thus far, are Rutgers, Maryland, TCU and Utah. I don't thing NU, MU, CU, or ATM really improved their athletic departments. Instead college athletics has lost some great rivalries through these shifts.
|
|
|
Post by archie on Aug 1, 2013 11:03:55 GMT -5
I agree. Most, if not all, of the teams that moved can brag that they have a bigger athletic budget and more revenue from their new conference, but that doesn't mean a healthier athletic department.
There was an article here in the Atlanta newspaper a few weeks back about how the Georgia athletic department has the largest reserve fund in the SEC and the lowest amount of total debt and annual debt payments. Meanwhile, programs like Tennessee have somewhere around a $90-100 million annual athletic budget, but also about $100 million in total debt and about $12 million in debt payments each year. All of that debt was from "trying to keep up with the SEC" with all the superfluous and pretentious facility upgrades.
That's the pool that A&M and Missouri as swimming in now. They may have gotten a nice pay raise, but their cost of living went up just as much! Same with West Virginia, they had no choice and would've been left behind if they didn't make the move, but that doesn't mean their move was for the better.
|
|
|
Post by archie on Aug 1, 2013 11:17:40 GMT -5
That being said... this is all temporary! Never in the history of college football has there been a period of more than 10 years without significant changes to conference alignment. This will all change against within 10 more years!
Here's a sample of the major changes... 2003 - ACC Expansion 1996 - SWC-Big 8 Merger - 1996 1992 - SEC Expansion - 1992 1980's - Major Independents joining conferences, Formation of the Big East 1970's - Formation of the ACC, Expanded Pacific Coast Conference 1960's - SEC Contraction, SWC expansion
The only difference today from 50 years ago is the ripple effect is bigger when teams move conferences. Nebraska joining the Big 10 started a chain reaction, whereas nobody cared when Georgia Tech left the SEC in 1964 or when Penn State joined the Big 10 in 1993. When teams move today, other conferences have to respond or risk being at a competitive disadvantage.
|
|
|
Post by longhorn99 on Sept 2, 2013 12:38:46 GMT -5
What has it gotten us? Who's in a significantly better position? The biggest winners to me, thus far, are Rutgers, Maryland, TCU and Utah. I don't thing NU, MU, CU, or ATM really improved their athletic departments. Instead college athletics has lost some great rivalries through these shifts. Agree. I also noticed that our new bowl arrangements are primarily with conferences whom we lost teams to (PAC-12 and SEC). We also have 1 bowl game each against ACC and Big10. So overall there doesn't seem to be animosity among the conferences and maybe the moves were a natural thing as Archie pointed out. Anyway the playoffs starting next year should be exciting. Big 12 should just pick up two out of: FSU, Clemson, BYU or Louisville (listed in my order of preference)
|
|
|
Post by lynchmob42 on Sept 3, 2013 11:15:02 GMT -5
I don't think bowl arrangements show or disprove any "animosity". Those agreements are made between conferences and bowl committees, in the best interest of the conference. I think the conference wants to play a good mix of other big-time conferences, as it raises the prestige of the bowl, and thereby helps the conference.
|
|
|
Post by archie on Sept 3, 2013 13:33:28 GMT -5
So I gotta be honest, I like college football a whole lot less today than I did two or three years ago. I'll go even further, I've fallen out of love with the sport. Realignment and lost rivalries, a corrupt system with no true championship, and bogus ineffective management at the NCAA level have left me about as disillusioned with the game as I can possibly be. College football isn't a sports league and it isn't a well run business, it's more of a cartel with dozens and dozens of competing teams that pretend to share the same interests as long as it's convenient before cutting any and all allegiance to other teams in the name of a buck. Without some kind of unified leadership, the game will just eat itself alive.
|
|