Author
Topic: The Big East after Realignment
(Read 4917 times)

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #14 on:** July 26, 2019, 12:01:51 PM »

Quote from: rolltidefan on July 26, 2019, 11:24:39 AM

miami didn't join be until well after snellenberger. and i didn't mean to discredit miami, they were a force well before, during, and maybe after the bigeast.

vt, on the other hand, wasn't. does no one else remember the outcry from the 99 title game, and how vt was some lowly team from a weak conference? but they had vick and were undefeated.

the bigeast just always seemed like by far the weakest of the bcs6.

They didn't just seem like it, they were. Even when Miami was a powerhouse, it was Maimi and not much else.

I've always thought this was a major reason for Ohio State's win in the 2003 Fiesta Bowl over Miami. Miami simply hadn't been prepared to play against a team that could hit back. That year's Miami team actually played both Florida and Florida State but the Gators and Seminoles had five losses each:

Florida lost to Miami, a 10-3 Michigan team, a 9-5 FSU team, an 8-5 LSU team, and a 7-6 Ole Miss team. They did hand UGA their only loss, but this was still a five-loss team including three losses to teams that lost at least five games themselves.
Florida State lost to Miami, a 13-1 UGA team, an 11-3 NCST team, a 10-3 Notre Dame team, and a 7-6 Louisville team. Their best win was either Florida (8-5 SEC) or Maryland (11-3 ACC) so they were no powerhouse either.

Each team's prior opponents ranked by record (ties broken by me at whim):

10-4 VaTech for Miami, 10-3 PAC Champion WSU for Ohio State
9-4 WVU for Miami, 10-3 Michigan for Ohio State
9-4 Pitt for Miami, 9-4 PSU for Ohio State
9-4 BC for Miami, 9-5 TxTech for Ohio State
9-5 FSU for Miami, 8-5 Minnesota for Ohio State
8-5 Florida for Miami, 8-6 Wisconsin for Ohio State
8-5 Tennessee for Miami, 7-6 Purdue for Ohio State
6-6 UCONN for Miami, 7-7 Cincinnati for Ohio State
4-8 Syracuse for Miami, 6-7 SJSU for Ohio State
4-8 Temple for Miami, 5-7 Illinois for Ohio State
1-11 Rutgers for Miami, 3-9 Northwestern for Ohio State
DIAA Florida A&M for Miami, 3-9 Indiana for Ohio State
3-9 Kent for Ohio State (Miami had one less game)

Miami's schedule that year is just odd. They played UF, FSU, and TN out of conference but all three had five losses that year so that sounded a lot better than it actually was. They also played OOC games against weaklings UCONN and FA&M. Then they played their BigEast schedule. In theory that should have been a very strong schedule and even in reality it wasn't terrible but with UF, FSU, and UT all having a down year at the same time there really wasn't any high-end competition. Conversely, Ohio State had beaten a fellow P5 Champion (WSU) and two more P5 teams that finished at least 9-4 (M, PSU). Also, unlike VaTech (lost to a 4-8 Syracuse), FSU (lost to a 7-6 Louisville), and Florida (lost to a 7-6 Ole Miss) neither Michigan (14-0 tOSU, 11-2 IA, 10-3 ND) nor Penn State (14-0 tOSU, 11-2 IA, 10-3 M, 9-4 Auburn) had a "bad" loss.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #15 on:** July 26, 2019, 12:21:03 PM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on July 26, 2019, 11:42:24 AM

I think there are plenty of eyeballs in Kansas, but they are all over the place. You've got KSU pulling some of them. You've got Missouri pulling some of them. I'm guessing UNL and OU pull their share too.

Realignment wasn't about hoops at all - except for the Big East - which is now a hoops conference, period.

You have a point about KSU, Missou, UNL, and OU pulling viewers from Kansas but that just makes a bad situation worse as far as total number of eyeballs is concerned. According to the US Census, Kansas had a population of just over 2.9 Million as of about a year ago. That ranks 35th among the 50 states behind every B1G state except for Nebraska (37th with 1.9M).

Of the B1G states, only Iowa (31st with 3.2M) and the aforementioned Nebraska are even close to Kansas. Maryland, Wisconsin, and Minnesota (19th, 20th, and 22nd with 6.0M, 5.8M, and 5.6M respectively) each have about double Kansas' population while the rest of the B1G states are all at least twice as populous with PA, IL, and OH each about 4x as populous.

B1G states by population (national rank, State, 7/1/18 US Census est):

#5 PA, 12.8M
#6 IL, 12.7M (two schools)
#7 OH, 11.7M
#10 MI, 10.0M (two schools)
#11 NJ, 8.9M
#17 IN, 6.7M (two schools)
#19 MD, 6.0M
#20 WI, 5.8M
#22 MN, 5.6M
#31 IA, 3.2M
#37 NE, 1.9M

Even if none of Kansas' eyeballs were lost to other schools, there still wouldn't be very many.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #16 on:** July 26, 2019, 12:24:24 PM »

Oh, for sure. That's the point I was trying to make. KU does nothing for football viewership.

FearlessF · « **Reply #17 on:** July 26, 2019, 12:49:30 PM »

KU needs Texas

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #18 on:** July 26, 2019, 12:49:53 PM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on July 26, 2019, 09:43:58 AM

One of those is not like the other two.

It's been a long time since IU was strong in hoops.

True, but it's a lot like Notre Dame. They don't have to prove it on the field/court until their name/jersey value drops enough that it hurts them in recruiting.

IU BB still recruits like a powerhouse, even if they haven't gone to the Final Four for almost 20 years.

Kris60 · « **Reply #19 on:** July 26, 2019, 12:57:07 PM »

I wish I had time to look up some statistics but the BE OOC winning percentage overall and against other BCS conferences was always very close to that of the other BCS conferences. The winning percentage for all the BCS conferences usually fell somewhere between .470 and .550. Some years the BE was last, some years it was middle of the pack.

But the point being there was a clear delineation between those 6 and the other conferences. If the BE had a .470 winning percentage against other BCS conferences then then next closest conference would come in somewhere around .333 or something like that. From 1993-2003 (before the first split) the BE was 13-5 against the SEC in that period. The Mountain West or AAC have never performed at that level.

The BE may have been the weakest BCS conference (although I think the ACC was in the running for that too) but it still performed at a level in line with the other BCS conferences.

The other thing I’ve always said in response to it being the “weakest” conference was somebody had to be. There isn’t a 5 way tie for first now and there wasn’t a 6 way tie for first then. If you line up the 10 fastest runners in the world and race them somebody is going to come in last. It doesn’t change the fact they are still one of the 10 fastest people on the planet.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #20 on:** July 26, 2019, 01:04:53 PM »

In my mind, the ACC was the weakest overall, until they poached.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #21 on:** July 26, 2019, 01:14:12 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on July 26, 2019, 11:38:30 AM

At one point when it seemed that the B12 might crumble it actually did appear that Kansas might find themselves without a major conference home.

Their BB program is obviously one of the true Blue Bloods but they just don't bring a lot to the table in terms of what conferences are looking for today. Ie, there aren't many eyeballs in Kansas.

Agreed. And I think it's still possible. The B12 is IMHO the conference that's going to get decimated in the next realignment. ACC/SEC/B1G are too strong, and PAC is geographically isolated.

I think that ISU, OkSU, TCU/Baylor/TTech, and probably KSU are all toast when the conference blows up. None of them are flagship schools in their own state, and most of those states are not populous enough to matter. Sure, TCU/Baylor/TTech would bring Texas, but I'm not sure that the BTN could force its way into all of Texas with just one of those schools.

If the SEC ends up with Texas/Oklahoma, though, I could see the B1G jumping on Kansas. Kansas would be an acceptable cultural fit to go along with Nebraska as Midwestern farm states, and although their football sucks, their basketball is good. They're an AAU member as well.

If the B1G were to gain Texas/Oklahoma, I don't see a cultural or geographical fit where either the ACC or SEC would want Kansas. It's too northern, too Midwestern, for either conference.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #22 on:** July 26, 2019, 01:21:05 PM »

Definitely a conundrum. I could see the B1G making a run at Virginia and Missouri in the next round of chaos. The SEC takes Texas and OU, and poaches VT or NC State from the ACC to make up for Missouri.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #23 on:** July 26, 2019, 01:46:30 PM »

In response to @bwarbiany and @847badgerfan , I could potentially see the B1G deciding to go after OU and Texas but I don't think that either Mizzou or Kansas would be on our radar.

Mizzou practically begged the B1G for an invite before joining the SEC and we didn't make the offer. I have thought, ever since then, that the long-term plan for the B1G was to add something like UVA* and UNC. I think that Texas/OU would trump that, but otherwise, I think we are waiting for the right time to get UVA*/UNC.

One reason is population. This one is simple. NC and VA are ranked 9th and 12th respectively with 10.4M and 8.5M people.

The second reason is population growth. None of the B1G states are growing very fast. Census estimated growth from 2000 to 2018 for B1G states:

5.8% MN
5.6% NE
4.7% MD
3.6% IA
3.2% IN
2.2% WI
1.3% OH
1.3% NJ
1.1% MI
0.8% PA
-0.7% IL

North Carolina (8.9%) and Virginia (6.5%) are both growing faster than any B1G states.

The third reason, and I think the reason we wanted UMD is proximity to DC. Years ago most research money came from the private sector. I'm sure that a lot of Michigan's hefty endowment is a legacy of being the closest major research institution to the HQ's of the Big Three US Automakers in Detroit. In our modern era most of the research money comes from the Government rather than the private sector so having schools close to Washington is advantageous.

The fourth reason is that while Texas is a great school, Oklahoma isn't. UVA* and UNC are both great schools.

*UVA: I think that you could replace "UVA*" with "VaTech" throughout this post. I think that the B1G would prefer UVA mostly because Charlottesville is about 150 mi closer to DC (116mi by car vs 269).

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #24 on:** July 26, 2019, 01:55:32 PM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on July 26, 2019, 01:21:05 PM

Definitely a conundrum. I could see the B1G making a run at Virginia and Missouri in the next round of chaos. The SEC takes Texas and OU, and poaches VT or NC State from the ACC to make up for Missouri.

I think it's hard. I see the next step going to 16. And the problem is that there's not enough schools to go around without poaching.

But these conferences are IMHO too strong right now to see it being easy to poach. I think Virginia and Missouri are quite comfortable with their conferences. I think we partly got Maryland because at the time there was a lot more concern that the ACC would be in trouble, but now that they have 14 members and significant media rights, I don't think anyone is looking to jump ship.

So my initial thought is that there won't be any poaching. The only potential poaching I could see is if the B1G can make a compelling offer to Notre Dame to join in all sports, since they're not a true football member of the ACC. Which is IMHO only halfway poaching. But I also think that if the dominoes start to fall this way, the ACC will put a HARD press on Notre Dame to become a full-fledged member and add football.

If there's no poaching, and Texas/OU go to the SEC, I see Notre Dame becoming a full member of the ACC. I see the B1G taking Kansas because they're the only team in the B12 that I think fits.

That means each conference needs one more school. WVU would fit into either conference from an athletic standpoint, but I think the academics may not fit either.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #25 on:** July 26, 2019, 02:06:17 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on July 26, 2019, 01:46:30 PM

I have thought, ever since then, that the long-term plan for the B1G was to add something like UVA* and UNC. I think that Texas/OU would trump that, but otherwise, I think we are waiting for the right time to get UVA*/UNC.

My argument is that I don't know that we could entice UVA/UNC to leave the ACC, given its strength. In 2012/2013, when it was looking like the ACC was threatened, sure. They're both founding members, and I can't see UNC wanting to leave a conference they share with Duke unless the writing was on the wall that the conference was in dire straits.

I could see us having a better chance getting non-flagship schools like VaTech or NCSU, but I think the B1G probably only wants to add flagship schools at this point.

rolltidefan · « **Reply #26 on:** July 26, 2019, 02:41:30 PM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on July 26, 2019, 01:04:53 PM

In my mind, the ACC was the weakest overall, until they poached.

Quote from: Kris60 on July 26, 2019, 12:57:07 PM

I wish I had time to look up some statistics but the BE OOC winning percentage overall and against other BCS conferences was always very close to that of the other BCS conferences. The winning percentage for all the BCS conferences usually fell somewhere between .470 and .550. Some years the BE was last, some years it was middle of the pack.

But the point being there was a clear delineation between those 6 and the other conferences. If the BE had a .470 winning percentage against other BCS conferences then then next closest conference would come in somewhere around .333 or something like that. From 1993-2003 (before the first split) the BE was 13-5 against the SEC in that period. The Mountain West or AAC have never performed at that level.

The BE may have been the weakest BCS conference (although I think the ACC was in the running for that too) but it still performed at a level in line with the other BCS conferences.

The other thing I’ve always said in response to it being the “weakest” conference was somebody had to be. There isn’t a 5 way tie for first now and there wasn’t a 6 way tie for first then. If you line up the 10 fastest runners in the world and race them somebody is going to come in last. It doesn’t change the fact they are still one of the 10 fastest people on the planet.

i could see an argument for acc, but they were a step above bigeast, imo.

bigeast miami, acc has fsu, which were basically a wash. slight edge to miami/bigeast at time.

but clemson/gt/unc/ncst/uva/duke, are/were better than bc/vt/cuse/etc.

bigeast also had a strong presence of non-football members. i know most/all conf have some, but they had big names that just gave credence that the bigeast wasn't that into football as the rest of the big boys.

also, just because there is a line differentiating one conf from others doesn't mean they belong in the next step up. if i'm not mistaken, the aac, which has a lot of former bigeast members, is better record wise than the other g5 teams by a considerable margin. but i don't think many people would consider putting them on par with the p5 confs.

maybe i am being a little too harsh here. i don't think they were a g5 conf, or whatever the equivalent is/was. maybe somewhere in between.

Kris60 · « **Reply #27 on:** July 26, 2019, 07:45:16 PM »

Quote from: rolltidefan on July 26, 2019, 02:41:30 PM

i could see an argument for acc, but they were a step above bigeast, imo.

bigeast miami, acc has fsu, which were basically a wash. slight edge to miami/bigeast at time.

but clemson/gt/unc/ncst/uva/duke, are/were better than bc/vt/cuse/etc.

bigeast also had a strong presence of non-football members. i know most/all conf have some, but they had big names that just gave credence that the bigeast wasn't that into football as the rest of the big boys.

also, just because there is a line differentiating one conf from others doesn't mean they belong in the next step up. if i'm not mistaken, the aac, which has a lot of former bigeast members, is better record wise than the other g5 teams by a considerable margin. but i don't think many people would consider putting them on par with the p5 confs.

maybe i am being a little too harsh here. i don't think they were a g5 conf, or whatever the equivalent is/was. maybe somewhere in between.

What’s your objective measure for stating those ACC schools you listed were better than the BE schools you listed? VT was actually head and shoulders above any of the ACC teams you listed during its time in the BE. Syracuse and BC were performing as good if not better than the schools you listed (throwing Duke in there is a complete joke). During the time they were in the BE VT, Syracuse, and BC were a combined 17-14 against ACC schools.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: The Big East after Realignment

medinabuckeye1

Re: The Big East after Realignment

medinabuckeye1

Re: The Big East after Realignment

847badgerfan

Re: The Big East after Realignment

FearlessF

Re: The Big East after Realignment

betarhoalphadelta

Re: The Big East after Realignment

Kris60

Re: The Big East after Realignment

847badgerfan

Re: The Big East after Realignment

betarhoalphadelta

Re: The Big East after Realignment

847badgerfan

Re: The Big East after Realignment

medinabuckeye1

Re: The Big East after Realignment

betarhoalphadelta

Re: The Big East after Realignment

betarhoalphadelta

Re: The Big East after Realignment

rolltidefan

Re: The Big East after Realignment

Kris60

Re: The Big East after Realignment