(05-28-2013 04:36 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Whatever happened to the days of conference loyalty? IMO, this is what built conferences like the SEC, Pac 12, the Big Ten, and even the ACC to a degree, and yet, that is not the trend at all. The trend is to stay in your current conference for about 4 years, jump to a more "prestigious" conference stay in that one for about 4 more years, and then jump again to that conference you've always dreamed of joining. I hate that trend with a passion!!! Why don't schools find the conferences they want to join and then just join those conferences and stick with them for the long haul, rather than getting a case of TCU-itis??!!! Why?? It's like we might as well not even have rivalries at all, because nobody knows who's staying and who's leaving. I can understand why some schools deserted their conferences and some of it is justified. Nebraska never really felt like it fit in its conference so it left. Texas A&M pretty much the same story (Even Memphis could fit in here). Both schools gave the Big 12 adequate opportunities to retain them, and the Big 12 failed miserably both times, IMO. Colorado felt that the Big XII was going to implode, so they started looking around, out of fear, and the same could be said for WVU and the Big East. It's schools like TCU and Maryland (Maryland's admin, not all the Terp fans, because some wanted to stay in the ACC) that this is at aimed at, plus those people openly advocating the concept of "feeder" conferences to get schools from FCS. I just want to see more non AQ conferences be like the SEC and continue to be a real threat to bust the AQ party. But instead, it seems like all of non-AQ teams are looking to join AQ conferences rather than try to elevate their own non-AQ conference. And I just don't like it at all.

(05-28-2013 05:26 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  This isn't a new trend at all. It's actually something thats been common since the game began.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/37689691/

(05-28-2013 05:51 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  If they're truly your rivals, you'll find a way to play them.

(05-28-2013 05:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 04:36 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Whatever happened to the days of conference loyalty? IMO, this is what built conferences like the SEC, Pac 12, the Big Ten, and even the ACC to a degree, and yet, that is not the trend at all. The trend is to stay in your current conference for about 4 years, jump to a more "prestigious" conference stay in that one for about 4 more years, and then jump again to that conference you've always dreamed of joining. I hate that trend with a passion!!! Why don't schools find the conferences they want to join and then just join those conferences and stick with them for the long haul, rather than getting a case of TCU-itis??!!! Why?? It's like we might as well not even have rivalries at all, because nobody knows who's staying and who's leaving. I can understand why some schools deserted their conferences and some of it is justified. Nebraska never really felt like it fit in its conference so it left. Texas A&M pretty much the same story (Even Memphis could fit in here). Both schools gave the Big 12 adequate opportunities to retain them, and the Big 12 failed miserably both times, IMO. Colorado felt that the Big XII was going to implode, so they started looking around, out of fear, and the same could be said for WVU and the Big East. It's schools like TCU and Maryland (Maryland's admin, not all the Terp fans, because some wanted to stay in the ACC) that this is at aimed at, plus those people openly advocating the concept of "feeder" conferences to get schools from FCS. I just want to see more non AQ conferences be like the SEC and continue to be a real threat to bust the AQ party. But instead, it seems like all of non-AQ teams are looking to join AQ conferences rather than try to elevate their own non-AQ conference. And I just don't like it at all.

That's never going to happen until there is a split between the power conferences and the non-power conferences. Once that occurs, there will be one more big shuffle while people let the geography shake out a the peewee level-and then it will stop. At that point, it won't matter to any of the nonAQs what conference they are in because the junior varsity conferences will all be irrelevant and indistinguishable.

Same at the upper division after the split--they will all make tons of money and have great television exposure---there really won't be enough difference between any of the power conferences for it to really matter. Until then, anyone who can get out of a non-AQ conference and into a power conference will run for the exit like thier hair is on fire.

That split might be sooner than people think. It looks like they are already splitting the bowls into two groups--power conference bowls and the non-AQ bowls. Soon these bowls will have divisions that match thier unofficial designations.

(05-28-2013 05:48 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 04:36 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Whatever happened to the days of conference loyalty? IMO, this is what built conferences like the SEC, Pac 12, the Big Ten, and even the ACC to a degree, and yet, that is not the trend at all. The trend is to stay in your current conference for about 4 years, jump to a more "prestigious" conference stay in that one for about 4 more years, and then jump again to that conference you've always dreamed of joining. I hate that trend with a passion!!! Why don't schools find the conferences they want to join and then just join those conferences and stick with them for the long haul, rather than getting a case of TCU-itis??!!! Why?? It's like we might as well not even have rivalries at all, because nobody knows who's staying and who's leaving. I can understand why some schools deserted their conferences and some of it is justified. Nebraska never really felt like it fit in its conference so it left. Texas A&M pretty much the same story (Even Memphis could fit in here). Both schools gave the Big 12 adequate opportunities to retain them, and the Big 12 failed miserably both times, IMO. Colorado felt that the Big XII was going to implode, so they started looking around, out of fear, and the same could be said for WVU and the Big East. It's schools like TCU and Maryland (Maryland's admin, not all the Terp fans, because some wanted to stay in the ACC) that this is at aimed at, plus those people openly advocating the concept of "feeder" conferences to get schools from FCS. I just want to see more non AQ conferences be like the SEC and continue to be a real threat to bust the AQ party. But instead, it seems like all of non-AQ teams are looking to join AQ conferences rather than try to elevate their own non-AQ conference. And I just don't like it at all.

That's never going to happen until there is a split between the power conferences and the non-power conferences. Once that occurs, there will be one more big shuffle while people let the geography shake out a the peewee level-and then it will stop. At that point, it won't matter to any of the nonAQs what conference they are in because the junior varsity conferences will all be irrelevant and indistinguishable.

Same at the upper division after the split--they will all make tons of money and have great television exposure---there really won't be enough difference between any of the power conferences for it to really matter. Until then, anyone who can get out of a non-AQ conference and into a power conference will run for the exit like thier hair is on fire.

That split might be sooner than people think. It looks like they are already splitting the bowls into two groups--power conference bowls and the non-AQ bowls. Soon these bowls will have divisions that match thier unofficial designations.

(05-28-2013 04:36 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Whatever happened to the days of conference loyalty? IMO, this is what built conferences like the SEC, Pac 12, the Big Ten, and even the ACC to a degree, and yet, that is not the trend at all. The trend is to stay in your current conference for about 4 years, jump to a more "prestigious" conference stay in that one for about 4 more years, and then jump again to that conference you've always dreamed of joining. I hate that trend with a passion!!! Why don't schools find the conferences they want to join and then just join those conferences and stick with them for the long haul, rather than getting a case of TCU-itis??!!! Why?? It's like we might as well not even have rivalries at all, because nobody knows who's staying and who's leaving. I can understand why some schools deserted their conferences and some of it is justified. Nebraska never really felt like it fit in its conference so it left. Texas A&M pretty much the same story (Even Memphis could fit in here). Both schools gave the Big 12 adequate opportunities to retain them, and the Big 12 failed miserably both times, IMO. Colorado felt that the Big XII was going to implode, so they started looking around, out of fear, and the same could be said for WVU and the Big East. It's schools like TCU and Maryland (Maryland's admin, not all the Terp fans, because some wanted to stay in the ACC) that this is at aimed at, plus those people openly advocating the concept of "feeder" conferences to get schools from FCS. I just want to see more non AQ conferences be like the SEC and continue to be a real threat to bust the AQ party. But instead, it seems like all of non-AQ teams are looking to join AQ conferences rather than try to elevate their own non-AQ conference. And I just don't like it at all.

(05-28-2013 04:36 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Whatever happened to the days of conference loyalty?

(05-29-2013 05:53 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 04:36 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Whatever happened to the days of conference loyalty? IMO, this is what built conferences like the SEC, Pac 12, the Big Ten, and even the ACC to a degree, and yet, that is not the trend at all. The trend is to stay in your current conference for about 4 years, jump to a more "prestigious" conference stay in that one for about 4 more years, and then jump again to that conference you've always dreamed of joining. I hate that trend with a passion!!! Why don't schools find the conferences they want to join and then just join those conferences and stick with them for the long haul, rather than getting a case of TCU-itis??!!! Why?? It's like we might as well not even have rivalries at all, because nobody knows who's staying and who's leaving. I can understand why some schools deserted their conferences and some of it is justified. Nebraska never really felt like it fit in its conference so it left. Texas A&M pretty much the same story (Even Memphis could fit in here). Both schools gave the Big 12 adequate opportunities to retain them, and the Big 12 failed miserably both times, IMO. Colorado felt that the Big XII was going to implode, so they started looking around, out of fear, and the same could be said for WVU and the Big East. It's schools like TCU and Maryland (Maryland's admin, not all the Terp fans, because some wanted to stay in the ACC) that this is at aimed at, plus those people openly advocating the concept of "feeder" conferences to get schools from FCS. I just want to see more non AQ conferences be like the SEC and continue to be a real threat to bust the AQ party. But instead, it seems like all of non-AQ teams are looking to join AQ conferences rather than try to elevate their own non-AQ conference. And I just don't like it at all.

Easy for a member of the SEC to feel that way. You are already at top level.

(05-29-2013 12:12 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 04:36 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Whatever happened to the days of conference loyalty?

The Conference Loyalty that saw Bama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, UTK, Vandy, Sewanee, Georgia Tech and Tulane stick with the Southern Conference in 1932? Or when Clemson, Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, North Carolina State, South Carolina, and Wake Forest stayed in the Southern Conference in 1953? That saw Arizona and Arizona State stay true to the WAC in 1972? That saw FSU, South Carolina, UC and Memphis State stay true to the Metro in 1991?

Quote:When was this grand era of conference loyalty? Whether travel costs, ticket revenue in big football stadiums, away fan ticket revenue, participation in post-season football or a host of other reasons, schools have been "loyal" to the conference that gives them the best available financial deal for their school athletic department for upward of a century now.

As far as the current round of realignment, now slowing down at the top level but with several more kicks to go in FCS and non-football Div1, first, several decades ago a court rules that the schools owned their regular season home game media rights. Then, over the past ten years with DVR and ad-zapping, the value of live sports programming started to rise rapidly. That changed the money game, and when networks told conferences they could expect X for adding school Y or, as with the Old Big East BBall schools, Z for breaking away to form their own conference, the schools followed the money.

As they have for well over half a century.

tl;dr: its not like the good old days because of the bad new money, and also, it never was like the good old days, neither.

(05-29-2013 01:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Looking at it as loyalty is a little inaccurate.

Schools want to be in peer groups with like minded goals.

Some like the B1G started off with a bunch of similar schools (mostly big state research oriented Flagships) that stayed together because of it. Others like the SWC initially worked out but later became a divide between big state flagship schools, smaller state universities and even smaller private schools whose goals and missions were very different and (in many cases) incompatible.

Ultimately, everyone wants to be with the group of schools they consider to be their athletic, academic and cultural peers and are very willing to leave behind a group they no longer consider their peers if the opportunity presented itself.

(05-29-2013 01:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Looking at it as conference loyalty is a little inaccurate.

Schools want to be in peer groups with like minded goals.

Some like the B1G started off with a bunch of similar schools (mostly big state research oriented Flagships) that stayed together because of it. Others like the SWC initially worked out but later became a divide between big state flagship schools, smaller state universities and even smaller private schools whose goals and missions were very different and (in many cases) incompatible.

Ultimately, everyone wants to be with the group of schools they consider to be their athletic, academic and cultural peers and are very willing to leave behind a group they no longer consider their peers if the opportunity presented itself.

(05-29-2013 01:34 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(05-29-2013 01:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Looking at it as loyalty is a little inaccurate.

Schools want to be in peer groups with like minded goals.

Some like the B1G started off with a bunch of similar schools (mostly big state research oriented Flagships) that stayed together because of it. Others like the SWC initially worked out but later became a divide between big state flagship schools, smaller state universities and even smaller private schools whose goals and missions were very different and (in many cases) incompatible.

Ultimately, everyone wants to be with the group of schools they consider to be their athletic, academic and cultural peers and are very willing to leave behind a group they no longer consider their peers if the opportunity presented itself.

It will be interesting to see if the ACC can stay together long term:

Public vs Private
Some Flagships vs Secondary Flagships
North vs South vs Border State
Football First vs Basketball First