Realignment Megathread (All The Moves)

cayin

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 11, 2006
8,400
8,061
113
They have favorable conference scheduling. But that doesn’t mean the teams aren’t good. They’ve won 13 of the last 17, 6 of the last 10, and the last 4 national titles in a row. An SEC team has at least played in every championship game except one since 2005.

I don’t recall the SEC going 0-6 in bowls. What year was that? The SEC has only had one losing bowl record in a season since 2010 (the furthest date back I could find). No other conference has fewer than 3 (ironically the P12). They have the highest win percentage in bowls of any conference as of 7 years ago (.570). I couldn’t find a more recent number, but I’d bet this still stands.

Sorry, but all of those accomplishments aren’t simply because they’ve played 8 conference games instead of 9.

Regarding cheating, I don’t even know what cheating is anymore with NIL. I’d bet they paid players more than any other conference, but no one’s hands are/were clean.

Access to Texas helps, but they were winning titles before A&M moved to the SEC. They’re fortunate that they are in a warm, prospect-fruitful, growing region of the country that actually cares about football. The big ESPN deal in 2008 helped big time too.
one of the the divisions did indeed go 0-6. After Georgia Tech trashed one of their teams, their coach said can we stop hearing about the SEC now?
 

StateThrowdown

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2008
341
321
63
Jasper County
So what you're saying here is that it hasn't worked out.

Nebraska: they make more money, they still fill the stadium, but they've absolutely sucked on the field since they quit being able to recruit Texas and all their past cache hasn't helped them hire the right coach.

Missouri: they make more money, but their fans couldn't care less about the schedule they play and they've been very mediocre on the field. They don't fit their conference and are just kind of there with no rivalry games.

Colorado: they've gotten worse on the field AND lost a ton of money. There is no bigger loser in the realignment of the past decade than Colorado.

A&M: they got away from Texas, recruited at a higher level, but they still haven't won anything. With Texas coming to the SEC, they lose that advantage or uniqueness and they're still tethered to a coach who's been abysmal there. If you can make an argument that anyone who left the Big 12 is better off, it's them, but for how much longer?

Mizzou is weirdest one. Looking back with today's hindsight, I suppose it was the right move.

On the plus side:
- They have a seat at the big kids table.
- They have a lot more money
- They should have a leg up in recruiting MO/KS/IL if all kids want to play in the SEC (as so many of them have told me)

On the down side:
- They have no rivals in their own conference (Their "rivalry" with Arkansas is a joke. The Razorbacks couldn't give two ***** about them)
- They are the northern outpost in a southern conference. Similar to Iowa State which as we know brings challenges
- They have almost no realistic chances of winning the conference.

So they're in one of the two superleagues which is good. But if you have no rivals, little chance of winning the conference and a tough row to hoe to out-recruit your conference mates, your fan engagment is going to suffer. There is no question they've seen that.

The Mizzou fans I know for ten years constantly told me how great it was to be in a conference that wasn't ruled by Texas.

Meet the new boss....same as the old boss.
 

Al_4_State

Moderator
Staff member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 27, 2006
30,249
23,288
113
38
Driftless Region
Visit site
Mizzou is weirdest one. Looking back with today's hindsight, I suppose it was the right move.

On the plus side:
- They have a seat at the big kids table.
- They have a lot more money
- They should have a leg up in recruiting MO/KS/IL if all kids want to play in the SEC (as so many of them have told me)

On the down side:
- They have no rivals in their own conference (Their "rivalry" with Arkansas is a joke. The Razorbacks couldn't give two ***** about them)
- They are the northern outpost in a southern conference. Similar to Iowa State which as we know brings challenges
- They have almost no realistic chances of winning the conference.

So they're in one of the two superleagues which is good. But if you have no rivals, little chance of winning the conference and a tough row to hoe to out-recruit your conference mates, your fan engagment is going to suffer. There is no question they've seen that.

The Mizzou fans I know for ten years constantly told me how great it was to be in a conference that wasn't ruled by Texas.

Meet the new boss....same as the old boss.
Is it when you know you have no chance to ever compete for anything?

I know a lot of Iowa fans who are pretty freaking concerned about their future in light of the new Big 10.
 

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
5,797
6,270
113
37
Is it when you know you have no chance to ever compete for anything?

I know a lot of Iowa fans who are pretty freaking concerned about their future in light of the new Big 10.
If you go back a decade 5 different teams have won the big ten. No reason Iowa couldn’t if they got the right coaching staff. Similar for some other teams in the big ten or SEC. Also it will be eaiser to get into the playoff coming from those leagues due to the media love. Playoff appearances will be pretty close to conference championships in appeal in a few years I would imagine.
 

StateThrowdown

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2008
341
321
63
Jasper County
Is it when you know you have no chance to ever compete for anything?

I know a lot of Iowa fans who are pretty freaking concerned about their future in light of the new Big 10.
Good point. Personally, I think the Mizzou fans are lying to themselves with how much they love the SEC. The older one's have outright told me they miss the Big 8 and while they'd rather be in the SEC as opposed the the Big 12, they'd rather be in the old Big 8 more than the SEC. Several Nebraska fans have told me that as well. Definitley doesn't mean thats the mindset of the fanbases as a whole, just what I've heard.

The biggest difference is I think Iowa still has a punchers chance in the Big Ten as opposed to Mizzou in the SEC. If Iowa gets a favorable schedule and is on their game in the title game against a team like Ohio State, they can win. There are just so many heavyweights now in the SEC I don't see how often Mizzou even will have a chance to make it that far. A favorable schedule in the SEC is a much tougher animal than a favorable schedule in the Big Ten.
 

Gunnerclone

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2010
69,166
69,174
113
DSM
Besides more money Nebby is the biggest loser. They will be wandering the desert in Fb the rest of my life. **** them, the fans, and especially that pos Osborne. **** them all.

Personally I don’t think they would look much different in the current Big 12 for all of the reasons that have been noted
Mizzou is weirdest one. Looking back with today's hindsight, I suppose it was the right move.

On the plus side:
- They have a seat at the big kids table.
- They have a lot more money
- They should have a leg up in recruiting MO/KS/IL if all kids want to play in the SEC (as so many of them have told me)

On the down side:
- They have no rivals in their own conference (Their "rivalry" with Arkansas is a joke. The Razorbacks couldn't give two ***** about them)
- They are the northern outpost in a southern conference. Similar to Iowa State which as we know brings challenges
- They have almost no realistic chances of winning the conference.

So they're in one of the two superleagues which is good. But if you have no rivals, little chance of winning the conference and a tough row to hoe to out-recruit your conference mates, your fan engagment is going to suffer. There is no question they've seen that.

The Mizzou fans I know for ten years constantly told me how great it was to be in a conference that wasn't ruled by Texas.

Meet the new boss....same as the old boss.


Great points. Has to be a weird feeling knowing that you will NEVER win a conference championship and there’s a high likelihood that you won’t ever even see a CCG.
 

Clonehomer

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
22,131
17,917
113
The Big 10 has been bad for Nebraska because they lost all of their historical opponents and they haven't been any good. None of this has been even remotely fun for their fans.

The Big 10 schedule they've played has been weaker than the Big 12 schedule they would have played, but that schedule was against historical foes with close road trips, which are things that always mattered to Husker fans. The Big 10 schedule isn't why they've lost. I think they got out of touch with who they are, as silly as that might sound, and they're just kind of wandering beating their chest about the paychecks they get.

Since when have athletic departments judged the positive or negative outcomes on what's fun for the fans? It's all about the money now. And by that metric, Nebraska's move to the Big10 has been a huge success.
 

FriendlySpartan

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2021
5,797
6,270
113
37
Personally I don’t think they would look much different in the current Big 12 for all of the reasons that have been noted



Great points. Has to be a weird feeling knowing that you will NEVER win a conference championship and there’s a high likelihood that you won’t ever even see a CCG.
Yeah but for mizzu how is that any different than they have ever been? They last won a conference title in the 60’s, and when they made it to a CCG they lose by 20+ points on average. It’s not like they fell, they were never really up to begin with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cyclone Pfan

jcyclonee

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2006
22,485
25,058
113
Minneapolis
So if they were in the Big 12 last year getting drubbed by traditional foes and go 1-8 in the league that would’ve been more fun for them?

It’s bad for the fans because the team stinks. The team stinks because the coaching has been bad. I never thought NU fans cared that much about rivals other than OU, and pretty much considered themselves way above everyone else.
They cared about Colorado. They enjoyed playing the rest of the teams with short road trips. They did not like losing to the rest of the teams.
 

Gunnerclone

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2010
69,166
69,174
113
DSM
Since when have athletic departments judged the positive or negative outcomes on what's fun for the fans? It's all about the money now. And by that metric, Nebraska's move to the Big10 has been a huge success.

You could say that for the majority of schools but Nebby was already flush before that. They are a cult so it’s different. Big 10 money doesn’t make up for Losing the donors and boosters and STH’s at some point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JimmyChitwood

Gunnerclone

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2010
69,166
69,174
113
DSM
Yeah but for mizzu how is that any different than they have ever been? They last won a conference title in the 60’s, and when they made it to a CCG they lose by 20+ points on average. It’s not like they fell, they were never really up to begin with.

If they were in the Big 12 they would have a chance. Would it happen? Probably not for what you noted above but at least there’s a chance it could happen. That is not true in the SEC especially now that Texas and OU are in the mix.
 

NorthCyd

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 22, 2011
17,552
27,725
113
Since when have athletic departments judged the positive or negative outcomes on what's fun for the fans? It's all about the money now. And by that metric, Nebraska's move to the Big10 has been a huge success.
I mean, it wasn't that along ago that was what mattered because fan engagement equaled money. It's only been relatively recently that the money you earn through conference affiliation trumps everything else.
 

Clone83

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2006
5,042
1,031
113
Kansas City Star article on Central Florida and their AD, Terry Mohajir, and the last round of realignment more generally:


... Bowlsby knew the top candidates for admission to the Big 12. The conference had started keeping files on them (and several other schools) while considering expansion in 2016.

A media-rights goldmine​

Bowlsby retired last year and was succeeded by new Big 12 commissioner Brett Yormark. Three months into Yormark’s tenue, the Big 12 rocked the college sports landscape by announcing a six-year, $2.3 billion media-rights extension.

The deal starts in 2025 and will generate $31.7 million in annual media revenue to each of the league’s member institutions. Add that to other revenue streams, such as College Football Playoff payouts, bowl payouts and NCAA Tournament units, and each Big 12 school is expected to receive some $50 million in annual distribution. This year, Big 12 members received an average of $44 million apiece.

Those figures place the Big 12 in the middle of the Power Five conferences and thrust the league’s newcomers into a higher tax bracket. ...
 

isucy86

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2006
7,869
6,451
113
Dubuque
If you go back a decade 5 different teams have won the big ten. No reason Iowa couldn’t if they got the right coaching staff. Similar for some other teams in the big ten or SEC. Also it will be eaiser to get into the playoff coming from those leagues due to the media love. Playoff appearances will be pretty close to conference championships in appeal in a few years I would imagine.
The problem with that argument is Ferentz is the right coach for Iowa. Without Ferentz, they would have record like Illini, Indiana or Huskers over the last decade.

Obviously, if they catch lightning in a bottle, maybe there is a year they could get in 12 team playoff. But it better happen before Washington and Oregon join.
 

AuH2O

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2013
11,144
17,027
113
It's been a disaster for Nebraska. When was the last time Nebraska played in a bowl game? The entire program is a joke at this point.
Nebraska has been a disaster since Pelini left. They had four years of the Big 10 where they won 9 or 10 games.

They had seven straight seasons of 9 or 10 wins. Three in the Big 12 then three in the Big 10. Riley also won 6 and 9 in his first two seasons. So they went to 7 bowls to start their Big 10 play. As a comparison they went to bowls in 5 of their last 7 seasons in the Big 12.

Are people arguing that it took year 8 of being in the Big 10 before it really drug their program down?

People need to stop comparing what happened a quarter of a century ago and think that is remotely relevant to how things would be for Nebraska in the Big 12 now. As long as they would've still hired Riley and Frost, they'd be a Big 12 bottom feeder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlySpartan

SEIOWA CLONE

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2018
6,679
6,889
113
62
Two things get overlooked about Nebraska's downfall, IMO. One is Nebraska's schedule through the 70s, 80s and early 90s. In an 11 game schedule:
  • 3 absolute cupcakes that might be schools you've never heard of
  • 1 OOC game against a major team (ie: Washington, Penn St, Florida St, UCLA)
  • 2 conference games against top 10-15 teams (usually OU + one of Colorado/Missouri/Oklahoma St)
  • 3 conference games against fringe top-25 or at least not horrible teams (the other 2 of Colorado/Missouri/Okie Lite + Kansas)
  • 2 conference games against historically bad programs (ISU except in the late 70s, K-State except the early 90s)
That's about as close as you can get to an automatic 9 wins a year without having to beat anyone all that good.
I get that, so Nebraska was playing a EIU Fry schedule after he got control of scheduling, but I will give those teams some credit, they were on the cutting edge of weight training, at the time. Most likely lots of kids taking roids, but that has never been proven. They knew where their bread was buttered, running the ball and they we great at it.
No matter how bad the teams you are playing are, you still have to beat them, and Nebraska and OU were great at it. You can respect a team and what they are doing and still hate them all the same.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: exCyDing

HFCS

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2010
67,781
54,965
113
LA LA Land
SIAP but this is a really fascinating read about how UCF rose and USF simultaneously fell. It seems the vast majority of it is just football success but being the first to have a real on campus stadium was key, seems just any stadium on campus was more important than having it be some greatest stadium ever.

Really shows how you can benefit from having football success at the right time. The football success of the two programs really was one sided USF and then a total flip to UCF doing great and USF doing horribly.

 
  • Like
Reactions: CyclonesRock