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.

TCU and Maryland are not the same. TCU was in a smaller conference being viewed as a mid-major. Now they are playing with the big boys.

Maryland was already at the Big Boy table. They needed more money (at least that's what they are selling us on)

Would you be saying this if it was your team on the other end making 500k-2M a year instead of all the money your team/conference makes?

If the SEC/Big 10 would quit inviting/accepting teams from other conferences then this would not be happening.....Same goes for the ACC.

Don't give the Big 12 a pass on that one. If anything they (along with Arkansas going to the SEC) were the ones who started this whole mess 20 years ago.

And don't blame TCU they just ended up in 2012 where they should have been 20 years ago (SWC/Big 12).

As a Houston fan I would love to have/be in the B12 like we were in the SWC and stay there and build that conference, but don't get me started on that whole mess........

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/

Just take a look at the history of the Southern Conference... essentially the entire SEC and ACC south of the Mason-Dixon line was part of that conference at one time or another.

(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 05:26 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/

That website doesn't even consider the big basketball conferences - like the MVC (which was a major conference at one time, with 16 Final Fours and 4 national titles from 1945-1979) and the Metro.

The 80s were a period of calm, and some people mistakenly think that was the "norm" because they don't remember further back than that. In reality, the calm of the 80s was the aberration.

If they're truly your rivals, you'll find a way to play them. UC and Louisville have played all but 3 years since 1966. UC and Miami have played all but 7 years since 1888. And we've rarely been in the same football conference with either.

"The only constant is change."

You could always watch the MAC. We don't change too much especially on the full member end. lol

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

Unless your in Texas politics play just as much a roadblock as anything to maintaining in-state rivalries.

Ill admit that schools like Texas and A&M have little to gain from their side of the ledger, but you don't see the level of political bs like you do in Texas when it comes to major college athletics.

(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.

They might have good TV exposure but there will be fewer people watching - even if they DON'T have to buy a special cable package to be able to watch the game on whatever pompous conference network they came up with.

Fans like to see cinderellas in play. The power schools don't though. They feel they don't look so bad as long as they're only losing to schools in their own conference, as they can always pretend that Indiana or Kansas is better than a mid-level MAC team since they wouldn't be losing to them anymore.

(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.

Nebraska had a case of the ass for Texas. Nebraska fit very well in the old Big Eight, when everything suited them...

(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.

(05-28-2013 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?

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 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.

Did you look at the other teams I support?? Southern Miss & Troy are nowhere near the top level, and my post was written with the perspective of those teams in mind. Southern Miss fans & Troy fans may disagree with me, but my opinion is my own and I refuse to change it.

(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?

Good post and good point. I'm guessing the SEC split with the SoCon (Georgia, 'Bama, Auburn, etc.) was something similar to what the Mountain West did to the WAC when it first formed. Conference was "too big" and rivalry games were in "danger." I put the words "too big" and in "danger" in quotes because I'm not certain what was the real reason for the split, and I see how big the SEC is today, so I'm wondering if some other factor was really the issue for the split. Something to do some research on. :) I'm thinking maybe something similar with the ACC split from the SoCon, but then again, I really don't know the details on that one either.

Arizona & Arizona State I do know the story through reading online and various sports magazines & books. From what I've gathered, the two schools were really above average performers in the WAC. USC wanted some closer rivals, and threatened to leave the Pac 12 (Pac 10 back then) if the Arizona schools weren't invited. Arizona State's academics were a concern for the Pac 10/12 schools, but with USC pushing for their admission, Arizona State got an invite anyway. Yes, Arizona & Arizona State could have opted to turn down the invitations to stay in the WAC, but the Pac 10/12 was and still is a very prestigious academic as well as a very prestigious athletic conference.

As for Florida State and South Carolina, I'm not quite sure why they decided to bolt the Metro other than $$$'s and maybe/possibly academics in FSU's case. Not sure of the reason for UC & Memphis. More good research topics!! :)

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.

So true. Yes, I can see where that lawsuit filed against the NCAA (or whoever collectively held college football tv rights) by one of my schools & Oklahoma did begin this horrible trend. I've looked back at it, and the more I've thought about it, the more I am inclined to agree with the NCAA over my UGa Dawgs on this issue. I didn't follow college football back then, but I'm starting to wish that I did. However, I was just a boy growing up at the time. :)

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 01:30 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

(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.

I don't think there are any schools moving to another conference that aren't planning on getting more money from it, regardless of fit.

(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

I think the ACC could do itself a big favor and recognize who wants to be with who:

-Florida State
-Clemson
-Georgia Tech
-Louisville
-Virginia Tech
-NCSU
-WFU

-UNC
-Duke
-UVA
-Miami (northern private school that just happens to be located in SoFlo)
-BC
-Pitt
-SU

I agree with that, 10th Mountain!!!