Conference Realignment Sucks

[CoKane]

A little shake up here and there doesnt bother me. When conferences start dying or almost dying is when i get bothered. There's no up side to there being less conferences and the amount of stuff happening at once is why i fell in love with college sports

 

[HawaiiClone]

I didn't say ISU fans were loyal during CPR's last few years. They just showed up. Perhaps they had a glimmer of hope left.

Oftentimes going to a game when the team is not winning as much means fans are loyal to their team so I figured that's what you were saying, but now I know you weren't saying that. From my own experience, I would consider it loyalty to my team when I have shown up for games during a losing season, but I guess a person could also go to a game and not be loyal to his team, too, if he had decided to not cheer for the team, but just wanted to be at the game anyway.

 

[MartyFine]

I don’t even understand the end goal. Create one super league of blue bloods. Half will have losing records they aren’t used to and their fan base will lose interest. I certainly won’t watch if it doesn’t affect ISU. If I want high end football, I’ll watch the NFL.

I guess I don’t see how this money pot doesn’t dwindle.

This is a point nobody really discusses in the national media covering this story. Those cupcake schedules that B1G/SEC teams always play will be gone. Result will be traditional powers with really bad records. Fans of those teams will not be happy. Of course I could get used to Iowa going 2-10 every year.

 

[ISUTex]

Was watching a YouTube video that talked about how USC fans will start showing up more when the team does better. It made me wonder how loyal those fans are if they only show up when their team reaches a certain level of success.

People in LA want to be seen at the cool place to be. When USC is good, it's the cool place to be. Just like the Dodgers and Lakers.

 

[cysmiley]

True, but I got the sense that the fans still showed up even when the team was not in very realistic pennant contention.

Not so, in the early 60's used to jump on the L, and got to games, most "fans" were kids. They had Bratwurst cooking carts moving on the concourse between "box" seats and grandstand seats, without interfering with the crowd. Maybe 5000 in attendence, many seats were corporately sold, but no fans showed up. Kids came to see Ernie Banks and later Ron Santo and Billy Williams. There were always some"suits" who took the afternoon off and came, but not a lot. Wrigley loved losing, the fans did not!

edit: always took my glove to the game, sat down the left field line (after the game started the Andy Frain ushers usually didn't notice kids moving to the better seats. Was able to usually shag a few fouls each year as kids ran for them, good balls to use in our pickup games!

 

[KnappShack]

Not so, in the early 60's used to jump on the L, and got to games, most "fans" were kids. They had Bratwurst cooking carts moving on the concourse between "box" seats and grandstand seats, without interfering with the crowd. Maybe 5000 in attendence, many seats were corporately sold, but no fans showed up. Kids came to see Ernie Banks and later Ron Santo and Billy Williams. There were always some"suits" who took the afternoon off and came, but not a lot. Wrigley loved losing, the fans did not!

Years ago I went to an April game. Cold as balls and probably more players on the field than in the stands.

We talked to Bobby Bonilla and the Ump most of the game. Beer got colder as the game went on.

Wrigley sucks now.

 

[HawaiiClone]

People in LA want to be seen at the cool place to be. When USC is good, it's the cool place to be. Just like the Dodgers and Lakers.

Yeah, that happens there for sure.

 

[Ms3r4ISU]

I’m thinking quality losses becoming just as important as W-L records come NCAA tournament time.

 

[cyclones500]

From 1960-90, there were essentially only 6 total moves in the "major" conferences:
Big Eight - none
Big Ten - none
SEC - Georgia Tech (1964) and Tulane (1966) left
ACC - South Carolina left (1971), added Georgia Tech (1979)
Pac 10 - re-added* WSU in 1962, re-added* UO/ORST in 1964, added AZ/ASU in 1978

*WSU and the Oregon schools were part of the previous iteration (PCC), which disbanded and reformed as AAWU in 1959

Then the **** started hitting the fan in 1990.

Yep. The '90s contained the first big realignment/shake-up wave.

Including (no specific order of timeline or impact):

• SWC implosion/formation of Big 12
• Big East hitches wagon to football, begins gradual expansion
• Florida State (independent) joins ACC
• Penn State (independent) joins Big Ten

(Secondary impact, but notable):

• WAC bloats to 16, eventually leading to MWC formation/break-off
• Conference USA forms mainly as collective of Metro/Great Midwest schools, gathers stragglers from SWC & independent for football purposes

 

[Die4Cy]

A crazy aspect of the whole thing is that considering football pays the freight for almost all non-revenue sports at the NCAA level across the country, they are putting the entire structure of university sports at risk chasing TV dollars for football, should it all blow up.

People talk about these conference scenarios in an anodyne way, but there is a lot at stake when you choose to be a TV network's *****.

 

[Stewo]

I'm excited as hell to watch UCLA at Rutgers. Or Pudue at USC.

 

[cyfanatic]

A crazy aspect of the whole thing is that considering football pays the freight for almost all non-revenue sports at the NCAA level across the country, they are putting the entire structure of university sports at risk chasing TV dollars for football, should it all blow up.

People talk about these conference scenarios in an anodyne way, but there is a lot at stake when you choose to be a TV network's *****.

Yeah...and there are schools that it will drastically alter the athletic departments even if the P2 is successful beyond hopes! Schools left out will not have non-revunue sports at the same level as the P2 does. So the P2 will dominate those sports as well...at least in attention minimally.

 

[theshadow]

Yep. The '90s contained the first big realignment/shake-up wave.

Penn State was the first domino -- which shouldn't have even happened, but the Big East fubar'd that whole situation in the early 80s. If they had taken PSU in 1981-82, then there probably wouldn't have been a "need" for Miami later on. Anyway....

June 1990 (vote dates, not join dates) - Big Ten adds Penn State (not unanimous; 7-3 vote)
August - SEC adds Arkansas
September - ACC adds Florida State
September - SEC adds South Carolina
October - Big East adds Miami
February 1991 - Big East adds 4 football-only schools (Rutgers, WVU, Virginia Tech, Temple)

The newspaper stories from that era are fascinating. In May 1990, the ACC voted to stand pat. Four months later, they were welcoming FSU.

 

[cyclones500]

Penn State was the first domino -- which shouldn't have even happened, but the Big East fubar'd that whole situation in the early 80s. If they had taken PSU in 1981-82, then there probably wouldn't have been a "need" for Miami later on. Anyway....

June 1990 (vote dates, not join dates) - Big Ten adds Penn State (not unanimous; 7-3 vote)
August - SEC adds Arkansas
September - ACC adds Florida State
September - SEC adds South Carolina
October - Big East adds Miami
February 1991 - Big East adds 4 football-only schools (Rutgers, WVU, Virginia Tech, Temple)

The newspaper stories from that era are fascinating. In May 1990, the ACC voted to stand pat. Four months later, they were welcoming FSU.

Fascinating. All of that in less than one calendar year ... well before SWC officially dissolved.

I had forgotten about timeline of South Carolina & Arkansas additions.

Q: 7-3 vote on Penn State -- do you know off-hand which schools voted no? I was unaware of the vote tally on that decision.

"The newspaper stories from that era are fascinating. In May 1990, the ACC voted to stand pat. Four months later, they were welcoming FSU."
Goes to show that type of BS'ing isn't a recent development.

 

[KCClone1]

I'm excited as hell to watch UCLA at Rutgers. Or Pudue at USC.

Losing rivalries and regional play is the worst things about this. I miss Pitt v WV, KU v MU, MU v KSU. Probably no more Bedlam, Apple Cup, Civil War, and a ton I'm not listing. Bye, Bye Thanksgiving rivalry week. I watch those games now, but I doubt I will watch USC vs Michigan St. I hope I'm still watching college sports in 10 years, but it isn't trending in the right direction.

 

[AlaCyclone]

Years ago I went to an April game. Cold as balls and probably more players on the field than in the stands.

We talked to Bobby Bonilla and the Ump most of the game. Beer got colder as the game went on.

Wrigley sucks now.

My first game at Wrigley was in 1997. A cold April day. Walked up the window and bought a nice seat on the 3rd base side. Smallish crowd that day. The Cubs lost to the Braves to drop to (0-10). When I stopped at the trough to release my beer, one of the other fellows yelled out: "10 down, 152 to go!" Made me laugh.

 

[theshadow]

Q: 7-3 vote on Penn State -- do you know off-hand which schools voted no? I was unaware of the vote tally on that decision.

"The newspaper stories from that era are fascinating. In May 1990, the ACC voted to stand pat. Four months later, they were welcoming FSU."
Goes to show that type of BS'ing isn't a recent development.

This story lays it out pretty well:

How Penn State nearly ended up in ACC: Of Knight and Bo and which Big Ten schools voted “no” in 1990

This is the untold story of PSU's wild 6-month ride toward its hair's-breadth Big Ten confirmation, including exactly which schools didn't want it in, told by one who voted "nay" and two who saved the day.

www.pennlive.com

PSU needed 7-3 or better. Reportedly, it started out at 5-5 two days before the actual vote:
Yes: Ohio State, Illinois, Iowa, Purdue and Wisconsin.
No: Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Minnesota and Northwestern.

Illinois got Minnesota to flip, and Wisconsin got Northwestern to flip, and that was the 7 votes PSU needed.


As for the ACC standing pat in 1990, I think they probably truly didn't have any notion of expanding at the time -- then once the **** started going down elsewhere, they reversed course quickly.

 

[KnappShack]

My first game at Wrigley was in 1997. A cold April day. Walked up the window and bought a nice seat on the 3rd base side. Smallish crowd that day. The Cubs lost to drop to (0-10). When I stopped at the trough to release my beer, one of the other fellows yelled out, 10 down, 152 to go! Made me laugh.

Around that same era I saw a guy get thrown into the piss trough at Wrigley.

Not sure if the guy deserved it or if it was a Pearl Harbor job, but I've been a stall guy ever since.

 

[JM4CY]

I’m thinking quality losses becoming just as important as W-L records come NCAA tournament time.

What will be interesting is if/when 7-5 sec schools start getting into an expanded playoff over 10-2 big 12 schools or similar scenarios.

 

[CycloneSpinning]

I've been to a couple of Cubs games over the last 15 yearsish and it seemed like everyone was going just to be there and spent most of their time Facebooking.

Wrigley Field has become a vacation travel/bucket list destination. People go to be able to soak up the atmosphere, take selfies, and say they were there. Good news for the Ricketts crew because they’re still doing relatively well attendance-wise, even though they got rid of all their players. Bad new for actual fans, as there isn’t as much incentive for the ownership to actually try.