(07-26-2020 12:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now I'm sure it is not lost on you but, the message should be indelibly clear. "Power" conferences don't exist. Those with the best collection of "Power" schools make enough to retain power schools. Those who don't are encouraged to relocate. And none of it is about football. It's about ratings, which have replaced circulation, and nothing has changed except that regions matter less and national draw matters more. Beauty pageants were once in the Spring and football was in the Fall, and there wasn't a dime's bit of difference between in effect and both were wholly commercial.

I appreciate your long-range POV on the transitions between media, but I'm not sure how it pertains to Big East football?

I don't think Big East football schools like Pitt, Syracuse, UConn, WVU, USF, Cincy, and Rutgers changed much in brand value during their time in the Big East.

And heck, after spending time in the Big East, most of these schools were invited to join better conferences, meaning to associate with higher-brand schools. So this implies their time in the Big East didn't really erode their value much.

(07-25-2020 10:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 07:35 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 09:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 09:38 PM)Mav Wrote:  A&M has had Manziel and has been mediocre otherwise.

A&M has averaged 8.3 wins per season in the SEC, and their worst season has been 7 wins with a best of 11, and no losing seasons. They have gone to a bowl all eight seasons with a 5-3 bowl record.

In their last eight seasons in the Big 12, TAMU averaged 6.75 wins a year, a low of 4 wins and a high of 9, and three of the eight seasons were losing seasons, they went 1-5 in bowls during that time**.

So I think it's fair to say they have improved since joining the SEC.


** One thing that seems to have helped with bowl records is the change in conference. TAMU was 0-3 vs SEC teams in bowl games as a member of the Big 12, it is 3-1 in bowl games vs the Big 12 as a member of the SEC.

It helps when the SEC commish gets to hand pick the matchups for bowl season after the Sugar Bowl selection.

Well, the SEC is often at a disadvantage in the non-NY6 bowls, because it usually puts multiple teams in the NY6, which means weaker teams get bumped up to better non-NY6 bowls. For example, last year the Big 12 put two teams in the NY6, the SEC put four teams in. So that means down the bowl ladder, if a bowl is supposed to be "SEC #3 vs Big 12 #3", what happens is it ends up being SEC #5 vs Big 12 #3. That has happened a lot in the CFP and BCS era.

(07-26-2020 06:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 12:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now I'm sure it is not lost on you but, the message should be indelibly clear. "Power" conferences don't exist. Those with the best collection of "Power" schools make enough to retain power schools. Those who don't are encouraged to relocate. And none of it is about football. It's about ratings, which have replaced circulation, and nothing has changed except that regions matter less and national draw matters more. Beauty pageants were once in the Spring and football was in the Fall, and there wasn't a dime's bit of difference between in effect and both were wholly commercial.

I appreciate your long-range POV on the transitions between media, but I'm not sure how it pertains to Big East football?

I don't think Big East football schools like Pitt, Syracuse, UConn, WVU, USF, Cincy, and Rutgers changed much in brand value during their time in the Big East.

And heck, after spending time in the Big East, most of these schools were invited to join better conferences, meaning to associate with higher-brand schools. So this implies their time in the Big East didn't really erode their value much.

Regionalism built their branding. They've lost that. They were invited but not by the SEC and only 1 by the Big 10 as Penn State was independent.

I would argue that their branding has diminished, but not due to the decline of the print media but because of the death of the market footprint pay model which has given way to national draw schools which had the historic branding and larger alumni bases. In that regard the value of B.C. and Pitt and Syracuse has not diminished because they are B.C., Pitt and Syracuse, but because there is only one national draw in the ACC (Florida State who is in a down cycle) and one intense regional brand (Clemson). Notre Dame would be massive but is not a full member for football and only plays 5 games and then not against the leaders necessarily.

So as the value of the Big 10 and SEC has inflated due to the national draw capability of multiple schools within their ranks those in the ACC have diminished relative to the brand schools of those two conferences, but so too has the PAC and most of the Big 12.

I'm not saying they are worse off in the ACC, just that they aren't as valuable when compared to schools with a much greater reach and much deeper alumni base.

And now that this is what is rewarded they are not in the grouping that has a self sustaining cycle of national exposure, high revenue, and garners top recruits because of national exposure and high revenue, which in turn sustains or builds their brand which recycles the whole process.

Because of exposure recruiting 4 and 5 star athletes to Ohio State and Alabama is much easier to sustain. They don't even have to win it all. They just have to be in the final mix. Whether Dabo can build Clemson into a status that survives his eventual retirement remains to be seen. It didn't work for Va Tech sans Beamer. It hasn't worked for South Carolina sans Spurrier. It will be interesting to see how quickly FSU rebounds because as of now Papa Bowden is still the pinnacle.

While 'Cuse, B.C., and Pitt, and even WVU were in the Big East they were still extremely important regionally. When they lost that association that too has cost them relevance. Who won the Big East I would venture was far more important in Boston, Pittsburgh, and New York than who wins the SEC and when there was a Big East people in that region had a champion every year. They don't anymore.

(07-25-2020 08:55 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 04:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 03:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 03:00 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  First of all, this just shows how weak the Big Least was, and secondly, ALL of those those schools who moved have come out ahead because they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Everyone wants to rag on the Big East but they actually had a pretty good record in BCS Bowl games.

The Big East’s big flaw was that it lacked major tent pole programs that could drive television value.

Yes, the Big East was actually a Real AQ conference on the field, even from 2005 - 2012 when it was a reduced eight-team league lacking any tentpole programs. And not just in BCS bowls, but overall as assessed by stuff like Sagarin conference rankings.

For example, here are the Big East's conference rankings from 2005 - 2012, the year USF, Cincy, and Louisville joined. For 2005 - 2008 these are Sagarin rankings, as Massey Composite does not have rankings those years. From 2009 - 2012 they are the MC rankings:

2005: 6
2006: 2
2007: 4
2008: 5
2009: 2
2010: 6
2011: 5
2012: 5

Overall average .... 4.375

So notice that (1) while the Big East was sometimes last, it was only last two of the eight years. Heck, it finished *second* as often as it finished last. Also (2) The Big East was always in the AQ group, it never finished behind a non-AQ conference. Overall, the Big East was clearly a bona-fide AQ conference on the field.

Big East was indeed derided as the "Big Least" during that time, but that perception was wrong.

Were you living in Baton Rouge during this time you note, Quo? Basically nobody in the South that I talked to during this span considered the Big East football a "bona-fide AQ conference on the field," as you note. They considered BE football clearly inferior. Nashville already had lots of Big Ten, ACC, Big 12 and SEC fans by the early 2000s, and the fans of programs in those leagues I talked to (and I talked to lots, and still do) had modest respect for Big East football.

That's not to suggest I agreed with them or that the Big East wasn't an AQ. But back then, and relatively speaking, Big East football was not much more respected than AAC football is now by these type fans. And though their perception may have been "wrong," as you note, if 99 percent of them perceived BE football as glaringly infererior ... it becomes the reality.

Mostly the South has never considered anybody but the SEC and Big 10 AQ. Its not a good judge of how things are viewed nationally!

Now the Big East really was viewed as a "tweener," but the reality on the field is that they were a full AQ. WVU beat Georgia, Clemson and Oklahoma in BCS games in that era. It was the Big 10 that was a tweener in that time frame. It was Ohio St. and the 8 dwarves + 2 average guys. The MWC was a threat to get AQ status because the Big 10 was so weak that the MWC could have qualified if they just didn't have such deadweight at the bottom of the conference.

(07-26-2020 12:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 10:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 07:35 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 09:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 09:38 PM)Mav Wrote:  A&M has had Manziel and has been mediocre otherwise.

A&M has averaged 8.3 wins per season in the SEC, and their worst season has been 7 wins with a best of 11, and no losing seasons. They have gone to a bowl all eight seasons with a 5-3 bowl record.

In their last eight seasons in the Big 12, TAMU averaged 6.75 wins a year, a low of 4 wins and a high of 9, and three of the eight seasons were losing seasons, they went 1-5 in bowls during that time**.

So I think it's fair to say they have improved since joining the SEC.


** One thing that seems to have helped with bowl records is the change in conference. TAMU was 0-3 vs SEC teams in bowl games as a member of the Big 12, it is 3-1 in bowl games vs the Big 12 as a member of the SEC.

It helps when the SEC commish gets to hand pick the matchups for bowl season after the Sugar Bowl selection.

Well, the SEC is often at a disadvantage in the non-NY6 bowls, because it usually puts multiple teams in the NY6, which means weaker teams get bumped up to better non-NY6 bowls. For example, last year the Big 12 put two teams in the NY6, the SEC put four teams in. So that means down the bowl ladder, if a bowl is supposed to be "SEC #3 vs Big 12 #3", what happens is it ends up being SEC #5 vs Big 12 #3. That has happened a lot in the CFP and BCS era.

(07-25-2020 08:55 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 04:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 03:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 03:00 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  First of all, this just shows how weak the Big Least was, and secondly, ALL of those those schools who moved have come out ahead because they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Everyone wants to rag on the Big East but they actually had a pretty good record in BCS Bowl games.

The Big East’s big flaw was that it lacked major tent pole programs that could drive television value.

Yes, the Big East was actually a Real AQ conference on the field, even from 2005 - 2012 when it was a reduced eight-team league lacking any tentpole programs. And not just in BCS bowls, but overall as assessed by stuff like Sagarin conference rankings.

For example, here are the Big East's conference rankings from 2005 - 2012, the year USF, Cincy, and Louisville joined. For 2005 - 2008 these are Sagarin rankings, as Massey Composite does not have rankings those years. From 2009 - 2012 they are the MC rankings:

2005: 6
2006: 2
2007: 4
2008: 5
2009: 2
2010: 6
2011: 5
2012: 5

Overall average .... 4.375

So notice that (1) while the Big East was sometimes last, it was only last two of the eight years. Heck, it finished *second* as often as it finished last. Also (2) The Big East was always in the AQ group, it never finished behind a non-AQ conference. Overall, the Big East was clearly a bona-fide AQ conference on the field.

Big East was indeed derided as the "Big Least" during that time, but that perception was wrong.

Were you living in Baton Rouge during this time you note, Quo? Basically nobody in the South that I talked to during this span considered the Big East football a "bona-fide AQ conference on the field," as you note. They considered BE football clearly inferior. Nashville already had lots of Big Ten, ACC, Big 12 and SEC fans by the early 2000s, and the fans of programs in those leagues I talked to (and I talked to lots, and still do) had modest respect for Big East football.

That's not to suggest I agreed with them or that the Big East wasn't an AQ. But back then, and relatively speaking, Big East football was not much more respected than AAC football is now by these type fans. And though their perception may have been "wrong," as you note, if 99 percent of them perceived BE football as glaringly infererior ... it becomes the reality.

The Big East, like Notre Dame to a certain extent, faded in power as the print media that favored them due to circulation numbers in those regions faded. As the media became wholly electronic and national in scope regional circulation didn't mean as much as the ability to draw a crowd nationally. So the new goal was national eyeballs on the tube for advertising, instead of circulation of regional newspapers which were syndicated.

So there was a massive shift away from hyping smaller private schools with very regional alumni bases to hyping larger state schools with massive alumni bases, and hyping schools with historical brand recognition. And that methodology has worked so well that the historical brands with a few exceptions have monetized themselves even more effectively creating an even larger gulf between themselves and the rest resulting in a self perpetuating cycle of brand boosting, ad revenue to their carriers, more money, more exposure, and more brand boosting until the nation is fatigued with them. What has saved Notre Dame while relegating the former Big East powers to the archives of those no longer relevant, is Notre Dame is a historical brand with a national audience.

So now that College Football is reduced to Oklahoma, Ohio State, and Alabama, with the ACC's rise of Clemson as the would be fresh face, and now that the SEC can muster a fresh face often enough to make it seem legitimate, and Notre Dame can string together a run often enough to remain an alternative, the new network driving force is to consolidate the brands so they play each other more often in an effort to drive revenue maximizing games. And by the process of elimination this is supposed to bring fresh faces back into contention.

So from the time of the "Big East" those schools have not substantially changed in quality, they've just been abandoned by their failing press and their names have been lost in the fervor for national darlings and instead of dying on the field they have slowly died from lack of exposure.

There are no, and never have been, power conferences. What are called power conferences are those which group more nationally recognized brands together. And those which group the most are rewarded the best, hyped the most for ratings, and are therefore naturally inclined to get the best recruits which also want the most exposure in hopes of getting the most tube time and therefore the best signing bonuses when they turn pro.

And guess what (this is addressed to Bill Dazzle)? They are going to come from those teams that have the most people watching them and have the most exciting venues, which make the products being advertised nationally seem cooler than those of their competitors.

What the SEC bellyached about for years was the AP selection of the national champ. Why? It wasn't about the best football team in America, it was about the football teams in America which sold the most newspapers, and those weren't in the South. When the BCS was instituted the perceptions of who had the best teams shifted dramatically because of that 7 year run of titles by the SEC. The CFP hasn't really changed that.

When that happened the West Coast simply tuned out. The Big 10 got serious about competing, and Florida State and Clemson became the anti-SEC darlings and Oklahoma was tossed into that mix as well with hopes for Texas.

Now I'm sure it is not lost on you but, the message should be indelibly clear. "Power" conferences don't exist. Those with the best collection of "Power" schools make enough to retain power schools. Those who don't are encouraged to relocate. And none of it is about football. It's about ratings, which have replaced circulation, and nothing has changed except that regions matter less and national draw matters more. Beauty pageants were once in the Spring and football was in the Fall, and there wasn't a dime's bit of difference between in effect and both were wholly commercial.

This sentence is the key takeaway.

"What are called power conferences are those which group more nationally recognized brands together."

I'm not sure I've every considered it this way ... but it's true.

In short, the Big Ten and the SEC "group the most nationally recognized brands" in football compared to the other leagues. As such, they truly are the only two "full power football leagues" (with all due respect to the other three P5 conferences).

When I read a thoughtful and detailed assessment by JRsec, I mentally picture a man with writing skills and personality that combine elements of Chuck Klosterman, Cornell West, William Blake, Ray Wylie Hubbard and Larry David.

Always a treat, indeed.

(07-25-2020 10:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 07:35 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 09:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 09:38 PM)Mav Wrote:  A&M has had Manziel and has been mediocre otherwise.

A&M has averaged 8.3 wins per season in the SEC, and their worst season has been 7 wins with a best of 11, and no losing seasons. They have gone to a bowl all eight seasons with a 5-3 bowl record.

In their last eight seasons in the Big 12, TAMU averaged 6.75 wins a year, a low of 4 wins and a high of 9, and three of the eight seasons were losing seasons, they went 1-5 in bowls during that time**.

So I think it's fair to say they have improved since joining the SEC.


** One thing that seems to have helped with bowl records is the change in conference. TAMU was 0-3 vs SEC teams in bowl games as a member of the Big 12, it is 3-1 in bowl games vs the Big 12 as a member of the SEC.

It helps when the SEC commish gets to hand pick the matchups for bowl season after the Sugar Bowl selection.

Well, the SEC is often at a disadvantage in the non-NY6 bowls, because it usually puts multiple teams in the NY6, which means weaker teams get bumped up to better non-NY6 bowls. For example, last year the Big 12 put two teams in the NY6, the SEC put four teams in. So that means down the bowl ladder, if a bowl is supposed to be "SEC #3 vs Big 12 #3", what happens is it ends up being SEC #5 vs Big 12 #3. That has happened a lot in the CFP and BCS era.

(07-26-2020 10:32 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 12:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 10:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 07:35 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 09:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  A&M has averaged 8.3 wins per season in the SEC, and their worst season has been 7 wins with a best of 11, and no losing seasons. They have gone to a bowl all eight seasons with a 5-3 bowl record.

In their last eight seasons in the Big 12, TAMU averaged 6.75 wins a year, a low of 4 wins and a high of 9, and three of the eight seasons were losing seasons, they went 1-5 in bowls during that time**.

So I think it's fair to say they have improved since joining the SEC.


** One thing that seems to have helped with bowl records is the change in conference. TAMU was 0-3 vs SEC teams in bowl games as a member of the Big 12, it is 3-1 in bowl games vs the Big 12 as a member of the SEC.

It helps when the SEC commish gets to hand pick the matchups for bowl season after the Sugar Bowl selection.

Well, the SEC is often at a disadvantage in the non-NY6 bowls, because it usually puts multiple teams in the NY6, which means weaker teams get bumped up to better non-NY6 bowls. For example, last year the Big 12 put two teams in the NY6, the SEC put four teams in. So that means down the bowl ladder, if a bowl is supposed to be "SEC #3 vs Big 12 #3", what happens is it ends up being SEC #5 vs Big 12 #3. That has happened a lot in the CFP and BCS era.

(07-25-2020 08:55 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 04:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 03:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Everyone wants to rag on the Big East but they actually had a pretty good record in BCS Bowl games.

The Big East’s big flaw was that it lacked major tent pole programs that could drive television value.

Yes, the Big East was actually a Real AQ conference on the field, even from 2005 - 2012 when it was a reduced eight-team league lacking any tentpole programs. And not just in BCS bowls, but overall as assessed by stuff like Sagarin conference rankings.

For example, here are the Big East's conference rankings from 2005 - 2012, the year USF, Cincy, and Louisville joined. For 2005 - 2008 these are Sagarin rankings, as Massey Composite does not have rankings those years. From 2009 - 2012 they are the MC rankings:

2005: 6
2006: 2
2007: 4
2008: 5
2009: 2
2010: 6
2011: 5
2012: 5

Overall average .... 4.375

So notice that (1) while the Big East was sometimes last, it was only last two of the eight years. Heck, it finished *second* as often as it finished last. Also (2) The Big East was always in the AQ group, it never finished behind a non-AQ conference. Overall, the Big East was clearly a bona-fide AQ conference on the field.

Big East was indeed derided as the "Big Least" during that time, but that perception was wrong.

Were you living in Baton Rouge during this time you note, Quo? Basically nobody in the South that I talked to during this span considered the Big East football a "bona-fide AQ conference on the field," as you note. They considered BE football clearly inferior. Nashville already had lots of Big Ten, ACC, Big 12 and SEC fans by the early 2000s, and the fans of programs in those leagues I talked to (and I talked to lots, and still do) had modest respect for Big East football.

That's not to suggest I agreed with them or that the Big East wasn't an AQ. But back then, and relatively speaking, Big East football was not much more respected than AAC football is now by these type fans. And though their perception may have been "wrong," as you note, if 99 percent of them perceived BE football as glaringly infererior ... it becomes the reality.

The Big East, like Notre Dame to a certain extent, faded in power as the print media that favored them due to circulation numbers in those regions faded. As the media became wholly electronic and national in scope regional circulation didn't mean as much as the ability to draw a crowd nationally. So the new goal was national eyeballs on the tube for advertising, instead of circulation of regional newspapers which were syndicated.

So there was a massive shift away from hyping smaller private schools with very regional alumni bases to hyping larger state schools with massive alumni bases, and hyping schools with historical brand recognition. And that methodology has worked so well that the historical brands with a few exceptions have monetized themselves even more effectively creating an even larger gulf between themselves and the rest resulting in a self perpetuating cycle of brand boosting, ad revenue to their carriers, more money, more exposure, and more brand boosting until the nation is fatigued with them. What has saved Notre Dame while relegating the former Big East powers to the archives of those no longer relevant, is Notre Dame is a historical brand with a national audience.

So now that College Football is reduced to Oklahoma, Ohio State, and Alabama, with the ACC's rise of Clemson as the would be fresh face, and now that the SEC can muster a fresh face often enough to make it seem legitimate, and Notre Dame can string together a run often enough to remain an alternative, the new network driving force is to consolidate the brands so they play each other more often in an effort to drive revenue maximizing games. And by the process of elimination this is supposed to bring fresh faces back into contention.

So from the time of the "Big East" those schools have not substantially changed in quality, they've just been abandoned by their failing press and their names have been lost in the fervor for national darlings and instead of dying on the field they have slowly died from lack of exposure.

There are no, and never have been, power conferences. What are called power conferences are those which group more nationally recognized brands together. And those which group the most are rewarded the best, hyped the most for ratings, and are therefore naturally inclined to get the best recruits which also want the most exposure in hopes of getting the most tube time and therefore the best signing bonuses when they turn pro.

And guess what (this is addressed to Bill Dazzle)? They are going to come from those teams that have the most people watching them and have the most exciting venues, which make the products being advertised nationally seem cooler than those of their competitors.

What the SEC bellyached about for years was the AP selection of the national champ. Why? It wasn't about the best football team in America, it was about the football teams in America which sold the most newspapers, and those weren't in the South. When the BCS was instituted the perceptions of who had the best teams shifted dramatically because of that 7 year run of titles by the SEC. The CFP hasn't really changed that.

When that happened the West Coast simply tuned out. The Big 10 got serious about competing, and Florida State and Clemson became the anti-SEC darlings and Oklahoma was tossed into that mix as well with hopes for Texas.

Now I'm sure it is not lost on you but, the message should be indelibly clear. "Power" conferences don't exist. Those with the best collection of "Power" schools make enough to retain power schools. Those who don't are encouraged to relocate. And none of it is about football. It's about ratings, which have replaced circulation, and nothing has changed except that regions matter less and national draw matters more. Beauty pageants were once in the Spring and football was in the Fall, and there wasn't a dime's bit of difference between in effect and both were wholly commercial.

This sentence is the key takeaway.

"What are called power conferences are those which group more nationally recognized brands together."

I'm not sure I've every considered it this way ... but it's true.

In short, the Big Ten and the SEC "group the most nationally recognized brands" in football compared to the other leagues. As such, they truly are the only two "full power football leagues" (with all due respect to the other three P5 conferences).

When I read a thoughtful and detailed assessment by JRsec, I mentally picture a man with writing skills and personality that combine elements of Chuck Klosterman, Cornell West, William Blake, Ray Wylie Hubbard and Larry David.

Always a treat, indeed.

So you are saying my writing on contemporary culture advocates for a black radical dragon devouring situational humor while "I'm 41 and drinking in a honkey tonk just kicking Hippie's asses and raising hell!" What an eclectic creative dark bastard you must think I am!

West Virginia, Syracuse, Pittsburgh and Louisville had no choice but to accept conference invites from The Big 12 and The ACC. It wasn’t a competition decision but one of dollars and sense.

Thanks to Steve Pedersen, former AD at Pitt, The Big East turned down a deal in 2011 for 13.8 million per football team and 2.5 million for basketball only. In 2012 The Big East paid out 3.18 million per football school and 1.56 million per basketball only.

In 2013 WVU received a partial payment of 11 million from The Big 12 as its payments were phased in. In 2018 WVU received 38.8 million from The Big 12. In 2014 Syracuse and Pitt received 28.2 million from The ACC. Louisville received 23.8 million from The ACC in 2015.

In 2019 The American Conference announced an agreement with ESPN to pay 6.94 million per school. The new contract begins this year 20-21.

ESPN made it impossible for The Big East to continue to play football and forced these conference moves.

As for on the field or court.

Louisville football has averaged 7.3 wins a season since joining The ACC in 2014. The previous 6 seasons (5 in The Big East and 1 in the American) Louisville 7.6 wins a season. If you throw out the non bowl season from the 6 seasons in The ACC and the previous 6 seasons in The Big East / American the average football wins per season are exactly the same 8.4.

Louisville Baseball has won the ACC 4 of the 5 seasons played advancing to the NCAA Regional once, NCAA Super Regional twice and The College World Series twice as well.

Louisville basketball hasn’t been as successful as many of us would have liked but Coach Mack is building our program back. ACC membership is helping this process. Basketball attendance has still been among the best in the country.

UofL also had a Heisman Trophy winner in 2016. With same performances in The Big East / American, a Louisville player would have never won the Heisman.

While I haven’t been a big fan of the move to The ACC it would be foolish to see the move as anything but a success both on and off the court. The academic boost from Louisville’s membership in The ACC Academic Consortium has been invaluable.

While it would be easy for someone like, me who still prefers Big East basketball over ACC basketball, or would rather be playing Cincinnati for The Keg of Nails and visiting Memphis instead of some North Carolina schools for football games, The ACC has been a tremendous success for Louisville.

I would say by 2011 I could see the Big East being a "Big Mess". Once they invited TCU that was the last straw. I begged the ACC and Big Ten to "rescue" Pitt, Syracuse, and UConn. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/8440...-and-uconn

(07-26-2020 09:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 08:55 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 04:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 03:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 03:00 PM)THUNDERStruck73 Wrote:  First of all, this just shows how weak the Big Least was, and secondly, ALL of those those schools who moved have come out ahead because they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Everyone wants to rag on the Big East but they actually had a pretty good record in BCS Bowl games.

The Big East’s big flaw was that it lacked major tent pole programs that could drive television value.

Yes, the Big East was actually a Real AQ conference on the field, even from 2005 - 2012 when it was a reduced eight-team league lacking any tentpole programs. And not just in BCS bowls, but overall as assessed by stuff like Sagarin conference rankings.

For example, here are the Big East's conference rankings from 2005 - 2012, the year USF, Cincy, and Louisville joined. For 2005 - 2008 these are Sagarin rankings, as Massey Composite does not have rankings those years. From 2009 - 2012 they are the MC rankings:

2005: 6
2006: 2
2007: 4
2008: 5
2009: 2
2010: 6
2011: 5
2012: 5

Overall average .... 4.375

So notice that (1) while the Big East was sometimes last, it was only last two of the eight years. Heck, it finished *second* as often as it finished last. Also (2) The Big East was always in the AQ group, it never finished behind a non-AQ conference. Overall, the Big East was clearly a bona-fide AQ conference on the field.

Big East was indeed derided as the "Big Least" during that time, but that perception was wrong.

Were you living in Baton Rouge during this time you note, Quo? Basically nobody in the South that I talked to during this span considered the Big East football a "bona-fide AQ conference on the field," as you note. They considered BE football clearly inferior. Nashville already had lots of Big Ten, ACC, Big 12 and SEC fans by the early 2000s, and the fans of programs in those leagues I talked to (and I talked to lots, and still do) had modest respect for Big East football.

That's not to suggest I agreed with them or that the Big East wasn't an AQ. But back then, and relatively speaking, Big East football was not much more respected than AAC football is now by these type fans. And though their perception may have been "wrong," as you note, if 99 percent of them perceived BE football as glaringly infererior ... it becomes the reality.

Mostly the South has never considered anybody but the SEC and Big 10 AQ. Its not a good judge of how things are viewed nationally!

Now the Big East really was viewed as a "tweener," but the reality on the field is that they were a full AQ. WVU beat Georgia, Clemson and Oklahoma in BCS games in that era. It was the Big 10 that was a tweener in that time frame. It was Ohio St. and the 8 dwarves + 2 average guys. The MWC was a threat to get AQ status because the Big 10 was so weak that the MWC could have qualified if they just didn't have such deadweight at the bottom of the conference.

You seem to be confusing the Big Ten and ACC. The ACC had a miserable showing in the BCS era and not once had an at-large get a BCS slot.

(07-27-2020 06:39 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 09:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 08:55 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 04:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 03:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Everyone wants to rag on the Big East but they actually had a pretty good record in BCS Bowl games.

The Big East’s big flaw was that it lacked major tent pole programs that could drive television value.

Yes, the Big East was actually a Real AQ conference on the field, even from 2005 - 2012 when it was a reduced eight-team league lacking any tentpole programs. And not just in BCS bowls, but overall as assessed by stuff like Sagarin conference rankings.

For example, here are the Big East's conference rankings from 2005 - 2012, the year USF, Cincy, and Louisville joined. For 2005 - 2008 these are Sagarin rankings, as Massey Composite does not have rankings those years. From 2009 - 2012 they are the MC rankings:

2005: 6
2006: 2
2007: 4
2008: 5
2009: 2
2010: 6
2011: 5
2012: 5

Overall average .... 4.375

So notice that (1) while the Big East was sometimes last, it was only last two of the eight years. Heck, it finished *second* as often as it finished last. Also (2) The Big East was always in the AQ group, it never finished behind a non-AQ conference. Overall, the Big East was clearly a bona-fide AQ conference on the field.

Big East was indeed derided as the "Big Least" during that time, but that perception was wrong.

Were you living in Baton Rouge during this time you note, Quo? Basically nobody in the South that I talked to during this span considered the Big East football a "bona-fide AQ conference on the field," as you note. They considered BE football clearly inferior. Nashville already had lots of Big Ten, ACC, Big 12 and SEC fans by the early 2000s, and the fans of programs in those leagues I talked to (and I talked to lots, and still do) had modest respect for Big East football.

That's not to suggest I agreed with them or that the Big East wasn't an AQ. But back then, and relatively speaking, Big East football was not much more respected than AAC football is now by these type fans. And though their perception may have been "wrong," as you note, if 99 percent of them perceived BE football as glaringly infererior ... it becomes the reality.

Mostly the South has never considered anybody but the SEC and Big 10 AQ. Its not a good judge of how things are viewed nationally!

Now the Big East really was viewed as a "tweener," but the reality on the field is that they were a full AQ. WVU beat Georgia, Clemson and Oklahoma in BCS games in that era. It was the Big 10 that was a tweener in that time frame. It was Ohio St. and the 8 dwarves + 2 average guys. The MWC was a threat to get AQ status because the Big 10 was so weak that the MWC could have qualified if they just didn't have such deadweight at the bottom of the conference.

You seem to be confusing the Big Ten and ACC. The ACC had a miserable showing in the BCS era and not once had an at-large get a BCS slot.

Correct... The ACC was terrible in BCS games. The Big East/ American had a better BCS record.

(07-26-2020 10:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 10:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 07:35 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 09:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 09:38 PM)Mav Wrote:  A&M has had Manziel and has been mediocre otherwise.

A&M has averaged 8.3 wins per season in the SEC, and their worst season has been 7 wins with a best of 11, and no losing seasons. They have gone to a bowl all eight seasons with a 5-3 bowl record.

In their last eight seasons in the Big 12, TAMU averaged 6.75 wins a year, a low of 4 wins and a high of 9, and three of the eight seasons were losing seasons, they went 1-5 in bowls during that time**.

So I think it's fair to say they have improved since joining the SEC.


** One thing that seems to have helped with bowl records is the change in conference. TAMU was 0-3 vs SEC teams in bowl games as a member of the Big 12, it is 3-1 in bowl games vs the Big 12 as a member of the SEC.

It helps when the SEC commish gets to hand pick the matchups for bowl season after the Sugar Bowl selection.

Well, the SEC is often at a disadvantage in the non-NY6 bowls, because it usually puts multiple teams in the NY6, which means weaker teams get bumped up to better non-NY6 bowls. For example, last year the Big 12 put two teams in the NY6, the SEC put four teams in. So that means down the bowl ladder, if a bowl is supposed to be "SEC #3 vs Big 12 #3", what happens is it ends up being SEC #5 vs Big 12 #3. That has happened a lot in the CFP and BCS era.

(07-26-2020 10:32 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 12:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 10:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 07:35 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  It helps when the SEC commish gets to hand pick the matchups for bowl season after the Sugar Bowl selection.

Well, the SEC is often at a disadvantage in the non-NY6 bowls, because it usually puts multiple teams in the NY6, which means weaker teams get bumped up to better non-NY6 bowls. For example, last year the Big 12 put two teams in the NY6, the SEC put four teams in. So that means down the bowl ladder, if a bowl is supposed to be "SEC #3 vs Big 12 #3", what happens is it ends up being SEC #5 vs Big 12 #3. That has happened a lot in the CFP and BCS era.

(07-25-2020 08:55 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 04:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, the Big East was actually a Real AQ conference on the field, even from 2005 - 2012 when it was a reduced eight-team league lacking any tentpole programs. And not just in BCS bowls, but overall as assessed by stuff like Sagarin conference rankings.

For example, here are the Big East's conference rankings from 2005 - 2012, the year USF, Cincy, and Louisville joined. For 2005 - 2008 these are Sagarin rankings, as Massey Composite does not have rankings those years. From 2009 - 2012 they are the MC rankings:

2005: 6
2006: 2
2007: 4
2008: 5
2009: 2
2010: 6
2011: 5
2012: 5

Overall average .... 4.375

So notice that (1) while the Big East was sometimes last, it was only last two of the eight years. Heck, it finished *second* as often as it finished last. Also (2) The Big East was always in the AQ group, it never finished behind a non-AQ conference. Overall, the Big East was clearly a bona-fide AQ conference on the field.

Big East was indeed derided as the "Big Least" during that time, but that perception was wrong.

Were you living in Baton Rouge during this time you note, Quo? Basically nobody in the South that I talked to during this span considered the Big East football a "bona-fide AQ conference on the field," as you note. They considered BE football clearly inferior. Nashville already had lots of Big Ten, ACC, Big 12 and SEC fans by the early 2000s, and the fans of programs in those leagues I talked to (and I talked to lots, and still do) had modest respect for Big East football.

That's not to suggest I agreed with them or that the Big East wasn't an AQ. But back then, and relatively speaking, Big East football was not much more respected than AAC football is now by these type fans. And though their perception may have been "wrong," as you note, if 99 percent of them perceived BE football as glaringly infererior ... it becomes the reality.

The Big East, like Notre Dame to a certain extent, faded in power as the print media that favored them due to circulation numbers in those regions faded. As the media became wholly electronic and national in scope regional circulation didn't mean as much as the ability to draw a crowd nationally. So the new goal was national eyeballs on the tube for advertising, instead of circulation of regional newspapers which were syndicated.

So there was a massive shift away from hyping smaller private schools with very regional alumni bases to hyping larger state schools with massive alumni bases, and hyping schools with historical brand recognition. And that methodology has worked so well that the historical brands with a few exceptions have monetized themselves even more effectively creating an even larger gulf between themselves and the rest resulting in a self perpetuating cycle of brand boosting, ad revenue to their carriers, more money, more exposure, and more brand boosting until the nation is fatigued with them. What has saved Notre Dame while relegating the former Big East powers to the archives of those no longer relevant, is Notre Dame is a historical brand with a national audience.

So now that College Football is reduced to Oklahoma, Ohio State, and Alabama, with the ACC's rise of Clemson as the would be fresh face, and now that the SEC can muster a fresh face often enough to make it seem legitimate, and Notre Dame can string together a run often enough to remain an alternative, the new network driving force is to consolidate the brands so they play each other more often in an effort to drive revenue maximizing games. And by the process of elimination this is supposed to bring fresh faces back into contention.

So from the time of the "Big East" those schools have not substantially changed in quality, they've just been abandoned by their failing press and their names have been lost in the fervor for national darlings and instead of dying on the field they have slowly died from lack of exposure.

There are no, and never have been, power conferences. What are called power conferences are those which group more nationally recognized brands together. And those which group the most are rewarded the best, hyped the most for ratings, and are therefore naturally inclined to get the best recruits which also want the most exposure in hopes of getting the most tube time and therefore the best signing bonuses when they turn pro.

And guess what (this is addressed to Bill Dazzle)? They are going to come from those teams that have the most people watching them and have the most exciting venues, which make the products being advertised nationally seem cooler than those of their competitors.

What the SEC bellyached about for years was the AP selection of the national champ. Why? It wasn't about the best football team in America, it was about the football teams in America which sold the most newspapers, and those weren't in the South. When the BCS was instituted the perceptions of who had the best teams shifted dramatically because of that 7 year run of titles by the SEC. The CFP hasn't really changed that.

When that happened the West Coast simply tuned out. The Big 10 got serious about competing, and Florida State and Clemson became the anti-SEC darlings and Oklahoma was tossed into that mix as well with hopes for Texas.

Now I'm sure it is not lost on you but, the message should be indelibly clear. "Power" conferences don't exist. Those with the best collection of "Power" schools make enough to retain power schools. Those who don't are encouraged to relocate. And none of it is about football. It's about ratings, which have replaced circulation, and nothing has changed except that regions matter less and national draw matters more. Beauty pageants were once in the Spring and football was in the Fall, and there wasn't a dime's bit of difference between in effect and both were wholly commercial.

This sentence is the key takeaway.

"What are called power conferences are those which group more nationally recognized brands together."

I'm not sure I've every considered it this way ... but it's true.

In short, the Big Ten and the SEC "group the most nationally recognized brands" in football compared to the other leagues. As such, they truly are the only two "full power football leagues" (with all due respect to the other three P5 conferences).

When I read a thoughtful and detailed assessment by JRsec, I mentally picture a man with writing skills and personality that combine elements of Chuck Klosterman, Cornell West, William Blake, Ray Wylie Hubbard and Larry David.

Always a treat, indeed.

So you are saying my writing on contemporary culture advocates for a black radical dragon devouring situational humor while "I'm 41 and drinking in a honkey tonk just kicking Hippie's asses and raising hell!" What an eclectic creative dark bastard you must think I am!

Indeed. It's the most high of compliments I have given to a poster on this board.

(07-27-2020 05:15 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  West Virginia, Syracuse, Pittsburgh and Louisville had no choice but to accept conference invites from The Big 12 and The ACC. It wasn’t a competition decision but one of dollars and sense.

Thanks to Steve Pedersen, former AD at Pitt, The Big East turned down a deal in 2011 for 13.8 million per football team and 2.5 million for basketball only. In 2012 The Big East paid out 3.18 million per football school and 1.56 million per basketball only.

In 2013 WVU received a partial payment of 11 million from The Big 12 as its payments were phased in. In 2018 WVU received 38.8 million from The Big 12. In 2014 Syracuse and Pitt received 28.2 million from The ACC. Louisville received 23.8 million from The ACC in 2015.

In 2019 The American Conference announced an agreement with ESPN to pay 6.94 million per school. The new contract begins this year 20-21.

ESPN made it impossible for The Big East to continue to play football and forced these conference moves.

As for on the field or court.

Louisville football has averaged 7.3 wins a season since joining The ACC in 2014. The previous 6 seasons (5 in The Big East and 1 in the American) Louisville 7.6 wins a season. If you throw out the non bowl season from the 6 seasons in The ACC and the previous 6 seasons in The Big East / American the average football wins per season are exactly the same 8.4.

Louisville Baseball has won the ACC 4 of the 5 seasons played advancing to the NCAA Regional once, NCAA Super Regional twice and The College World Series twice as well.

Louisville basketball hasn’t been as successful as many of us would have liked but Coach Mack is building our program back. ACC membership is helping this process. Basketball attendance has still been among the best in the country.

UofL also had a Heisman Trophy winner in 2016. With same performances in The Big East / American, a Louisville player would have never won the Heisman.

While I haven’t been a big fan of the move to The ACC it would be foolish to see the move as anything but a success both on and off the court. The academic boost from Louisville’s membership in The ACC Academic Consortium has been invaluable.

While it would be easy for someone like, me who still prefers Big East basketball over ACC basketball, or would rather be playing Cincinnati for The Keg of Nails and visiting Memphis instead of some North Carolina schools for football games, The ACC has been a tremendous success for Louisville.

This is very well put, C-Jim. My sister-in-law is a Louisville grad. She's not a big sports fan, but I've told her about the significance of how the ACC has been hugely helpful to UL baseball and football and she understands. And, yes, Cardinal hoops is coming back with purposed. CMack can coach.

I miss having UL, Cincy and Memphis together, but Louisville is where it needs to be. The future is bright.

(07-26-2020 06:52 PM)JRsec Wrote:  While 'Cuse, B.C., and Pitt, and even WVU were in the Big East they were still extremely important regionally. When they lost that association that too has cost them relevance. Who won the Big East I would venture was far more important in Boston, Pittsburgh, and New York than who wins the SEC and when there was a Big East people in that region had a champion every year. They don't anymore.

I agree with that. I do not think that people in areas like NY and Boston view the ACC champion as the champion of "their region" the way they viewed the Big East champ that way a decade ago. The ACC is a distant entity their schools now belong to, not a "home area" conference like the Big East was.

(07-27-2020 05:54 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I would say by 2011 I could see the Big East being a "Big Mess". Once they invited TCU that was the last straw. I begged the ACC and Big Ten to "rescue" Pitt, Syracuse, and UConn. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/8440...-and-uconn

A rather prescient post back then, as the ACC did invite Syracuse and Pitt just a week after you made it.

(07-27-2020 06:39 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 09:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 08:55 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 04:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 03:32 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Everyone wants to rag on the Big East but they actually had a pretty good record in BCS Bowl games.

The Big East’s big flaw was that it lacked major tent pole programs that could drive television value.

Yes, the Big East was actually a Real AQ conference on the field, even from 2005 - 2012 when it was a reduced eight-team league lacking any tentpole programs. And not just in BCS bowls, but overall as assessed by stuff like Sagarin conference rankings.

For example, here are the Big East's conference rankings from 2005 - 2012, the year USF, Cincy, and Louisville joined. For 2005 - 2008 these are Sagarin rankings, as Massey Composite does not have rankings those years. From 2009 - 2012 they are the MC rankings:

2005: 6
2006: 2
2007: 4
2008: 5
2009: 2
2010: 6
2011: 5
2012: 5

Overall average .... 4.375

So notice that (1) while the Big East was sometimes last, it was only last two of the eight years. Heck, it finished *second* as often as it finished last. Also (2) The Big East was always in the AQ group, it never finished behind a non-AQ conference. Overall, the Big East was clearly a bona-fide AQ conference on the field.

Big East was indeed derided as the "Big Least" during that time, but that perception was wrong.

Were you living in Baton Rouge during this time you note, Quo? Basically nobody in the South that I talked to during this span considered the Big East football a "bona-fide AQ conference on the field," as you note. They considered BE football clearly inferior. Nashville already had lots of Big Ten, ACC, Big 12 and SEC fans by the early 2000s, and the fans of programs in those leagues I talked to (and I talked to lots, and still do) had modest respect for Big East football.

That's not to suggest I agreed with them or that the Big East wasn't an AQ. But back then, and relatively speaking, Big East football was not much more respected than AAC football is now by these type fans. And though their perception may have been "wrong," as you note, if 99 percent of them perceived BE football as glaringly infererior ... it becomes the reality.

Mostly the South has never considered anybody but the SEC and Big 10 AQ. Its not a good judge of how things are viewed nationally!

Now the Big East really was viewed as a "tweener," but the reality on the field is that they were a full AQ. WVU beat Georgia, Clemson and Oklahoma in BCS games in that era. It was the Big 10 that was a tweener in that time frame. It was Ohio St. and the 8 dwarves + 2 average guys. The MWC was a threat to get AQ status because the Big 10 was so weak that the MWC could have qualified if they just didn't have such deadweight at the bottom of the conference.

You seem to be confusing the Big Ten and ACC. The ACC had a miserable showing in the BCS era and not once had an at-large get a BCS slot.

No. The ACC did poorly in BCS bowls, but the Big 10 did poorly overall other than Ohio St. Computer rankings and # of ranked teams was low during the latter part of the BCS era. The BCS conferences set up several criteria to become a BCS conference thinking noone would come close. But the MWC beat the Big 10 in everything but average computer ranking. The bottom of the MWC was really bad.

(07-25-2020 10:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 07:35 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 09:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 09:38 PM)Mav Wrote:  A&M has had Manziel and has been mediocre otherwise.

A&M has averaged 8.3 wins per season in the SEC, and their worst season has been 7 wins with a best of 11, and no losing seasons. They have gone to a bowl all eight seasons with a 5-3 bowl record.

In their last eight seasons in the Big 12, TAMU averaged 6.75 wins a year, a low of 4 wins and a high of 9, and three of the eight seasons were losing seasons, they went 1-5 in bowls during that time**.

So I think it's fair to say they have improved since joining the SEC.


** One thing that seems to have helped with bowl records is the change in conference. TAMU was 0-3 vs SEC teams in bowl games as a member of the Big 12, it is 3-1 in bowl games vs the Big 12 as a member of the SEC.

It helps when the SEC commish gets to hand pick the matchups for bowl season after the Sugar Bowl selection.

Well, the SEC is often at a disadvantage in the non-NY6 bowls, because it usually puts multiple teams in the NY6, which means weaker teams get bumped up to better non-NY6 bowls. For example, last year the Big 12 put two teams in the NY6, the SEC put four teams in. So that means down the bowl ladder, if a bowl is supposed to be "SEC #3 vs Big 12 #3", what happens is it ends up being SEC #5 vs Big 12 #3. That has happened a lot in the CFP and BCS era.

(07-27-2020 08:22 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 10:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 10:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 07:35 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 09:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  A&M has averaged 8.3 wins per season in the SEC, and their worst season has been 7 wins with a best of 11, and no losing seasons. They have gone to a bowl all eight seasons with a 5-3 bowl record.

In their last eight seasons in the Big 12, TAMU averaged 6.75 wins a year, a low of 4 wins and a high of 9, and three of the eight seasons were losing seasons, they went 1-5 in bowls during that time**.

So I think it's fair to say they have improved since joining the SEC.


** One thing that seems to have helped with bowl records is the change in conference. TAMU was 0-3 vs SEC teams in bowl games as a member of the Big 12, it is 3-1 in bowl games vs the Big 12 as a member of the SEC.

It helps when the SEC commish gets to hand pick the matchups for bowl season after the Sugar Bowl selection.

Well, the SEC is often at a disadvantage in the non-NY6 bowls, because it usually puts multiple teams in the NY6, which means weaker teams get bumped up to better non-NY6 bowls. For example, last year the Big 12 put two teams in the NY6, the SEC put four teams in. So that means down the bowl ladder, if a bowl is supposed to be "SEC #3 vs Big 12 #3", what happens is it ends up being SEC #5 vs Big 12 #3. That has happened a lot in the CFP and BCS era.

(07-26-2020 10:32 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 12:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 10:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, the SEC is often at a disadvantage in the non-NY6 bowls, because it usually puts multiple teams in the NY6, which means weaker teams get bumped up to better non-NY6 bowls. For example, last year the Big 12 put two teams in the NY6, the SEC put four teams in. So that means down the bowl ladder, if a bowl is supposed to be "SEC #3 vs Big 12 #3", what happens is it ends up being SEC #5 vs Big 12 #3. That has happened a lot in the CFP and BCS era.

(07-25-2020 08:55 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  Were you living in Baton Rouge during this time you note, Quo? Basically nobody in the South that I talked to during this span considered the Big East football a "bona-fide AQ conference on the field," as you note. They considered BE football clearly inferior. Nashville already had lots of Big Ten, ACC, Big 12 and SEC fans by the early 2000s, and the fans of programs in those leagues I talked to (and I talked to lots, and still do) had modest respect for Big East football.

That's not to suggest I agreed with them or that the Big East wasn't an AQ. But back then, and relatively speaking, Big East football was not much more respected than AAC football is now by these type fans. And though their perception may have been "wrong," as you note, if 99 percent of them perceived BE football as glaringly infererior ... it becomes the reality.

The Big East, like Notre Dame to a certain extent, faded in power as the print media that favored them due to circulation numbers in those regions faded. As the media became wholly electronic and national in scope regional circulation didn't mean as much as the ability to draw a crowd nationally. So the new goal was national eyeballs on the tube for advertising, instead of circulation of regional newspapers which were syndicated.

So there was a massive shift away from hyping smaller private schools with very regional alumni bases to hyping larger state schools with massive alumni bases, and hyping schools with historical brand recognition. And that methodology has worked so well that the historical brands with a few exceptions have monetized themselves even more effectively creating an even larger gulf between themselves and the rest resulting in a self perpetuating cycle of brand boosting, ad revenue to their carriers, more money, more exposure, and more brand boosting until the nation is fatigued with them. What has saved Notre Dame while relegating the former Big East powers to the archives of those no longer relevant, is Notre Dame is a historical brand with a national audience.

So now that College Football is reduced to Oklahoma, Ohio State, and Alabama, with the ACC's rise of Clemson as the would be fresh face, and now that the SEC can muster a fresh face often enough to make it seem legitimate, and Notre Dame can string together a run often enough to remain an alternative, the new network driving force is to consolidate the brands so they play each other more often in an effort to drive revenue maximizing games. And by the process of elimination this is supposed to bring fresh faces back into contention.

So from the time of the "Big East" those schools have not substantially changed in quality, they've just been abandoned by their failing press and their names have been lost in the fervor for national darlings and instead of dying on the field they have slowly died from lack of exposure.

There are no, and never have been, power conferences. What are called power conferences are those which group more nationally recognized brands together. And those which group the most are rewarded the best, hyped the most for ratings, and are therefore naturally inclined to get the best recruits which also want the most exposure in hopes of getting the most tube time and therefore the best signing bonuses when they turn pro.

And guess what (this is addressed to Bill Dazzle)? They are going to come from those teams that have the most people watching them and have the most exciting venues, which make the products being advertised nationally seem cooler than those of their competitors.

What the SEC bellyached about for years was the AP selection of the national champ. Why? It wasn't about the best football team in America, it was about the football teams in America which sold the most newspapers, and those weren't in the South. When the BCS was instituted the perceptions of who had the best teams shifted dramatically because of that 7 year run of titles by the SEC. The CFP hasn't really changed that.

When that happened the West Coast simply tuned out. The Big 10 got serious about competing, and Florida State and Clemson became the anti-SEC darlings and Oklahoma was tossed into that mix as well with hopes for Texas.

Now I'm sure it is not lost on you but, the message should be indelibly clear. "Power" conferences don't exist. Those with the best collection of "Power" schools make enough to retain power schools. Those who don't are encouraged to relocate. And none of it is about football. It's about ratings, which have replaced circulation, and nothing has changed except that regions matter less and national draw matters more. Beauty pageants were once in the Spring and football was in the Fall, and there wasn't a dime's bit of difference between in effect and both were wholly commercial.

This sentence is the key takeaway.

"What are called power conferences are those which group more nationally recognized brands together."

I'm not sure I've every considered it this way ... but it's true.

In short, the Big Ten and the SEC "group the most nationally recognized brands" in football compared to the other leagues. As such, they truly are the only two "full power football leagues" (with all due respect to the other three P5 conferences).

When I read a thoughtful and detailed assessment by JRsec, I mentally picture a man with writing skills and personality that combine elements of Chuck Klosterman, Cornell West, William Blake, Ray Wylie Hubbard and Larry David.

Always a treat, indeed.

So you are saying my writing on contemporary culture advocates for a black radical dragon devouring situational humor while "I'm 41 and drinking in a honkey tonk just kicking Hippie's asses and raising hell!" What an eclectic creative dark bastard you must think I am!

Indeed. It's the most high of compliments I have given to a poster on this board.

And I find that odd since I don't edit for style, barely edit for grammar, and mostly edit because the program here can't keep up with keystrokes at 100 or so wpm and so frequently drops a letter, or letters, or just doesn't read the endings of contractions.

And here I thought the Judy Collins approach wasn't dark at all as I was just looking "at clouds from both sides now."

I'll tell you what's dark Bill. Americans are having to take a long hard look at what we have been becoming because right now the illusion of sport has been removed from our field of vision and as the hangover of a distracted mind lifts, as it does after the revelry of a drunken night with a strange woman, and we are seeing the faces next to us without makeup, with slobber on the pillowcase, and getting that first waft of morning breath, and asking that ubiquitous question, "What the hell happened here?" And then the disgust and self loathing sets in as to how we could have let ourselves go so badly as to arrive at this point.

The cold wet rag of our actual status in the world is about to slap our sleepy faces to jolt us completely to our senses and before our day is over we will turn again to that all knowing unseen entity most commonly called God, and ask in all humility, "Pleas help me get through this!"

And if that happens Bill, maybe we return to some form of tolerance if for no other reason than the commonality of our transgressions and the absolute and universal need of grace.

Under our nuclear umbrella we have had an orgy of self indulgence that denied the fragility of our way of life in a hungry and hostile world all the while believing that what was unthinkable to use could somehow save us. How deluded is that?

Football has been an image of our strength and it is now being trashed by circumstances beyond our control on the micro and macro levels. On the micro level it has become a medium for unwanted reminders of social issues, and on a macro level it has been shut down by a force we cannot see leaving us to ponder the intent. But in both cases it crashes the illusion of strength and vitality as few things could.

Realignment has been fascinating to watch sociologically. It contains multiple fan theories as to why their program is being promoted, demoted, or destroyed. And virtually none of these theories addresses the simple fact that corporations saw a great way to get their names in front of millions of Americans and since they took it over and realized its profit potential and its depth and breadth of reach they have been commercializing it so that it would become an added voice to the very things people wished to escape.

Cold wet rag meets sleepy hungover face.

And somewhere in the back of my mind I hear my father's voice when I was 10 years old on a Saturday morning when he literally would toss that cold wet rag onto my sleepy face and would say, "Off your butt and on your feet! Out of the shade and into the heat! Let's go! We have work to do!"

JRsec might be William Faulkner typing from beyond the grave.

He reminds me of Vanderbilt—Classy, Southern, and he’s been around for a while and gained some real knowledge and wisdom over the years.

(07-27-2020 02:07 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  JRsec might be William Faulkner typing from beyond the grave.

He reminds me of Vanderbilt—Classy, Southern, and he’s been around for a while and gained some real knowledge and wisdom over the years.

Well put. JRsec is the only person on this board who can take Quo to task and have Quo actually enjoy it.

(07-27-2020 11:13 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 10:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 07:35 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 09:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 09:38 PM)Mav Wrote:  A&M has had Manziel and has been mediocre otherwise.

A&M has averaged 8.3 wins per season in the SEC, and their worst season has been 7 wins with a best of 11, and no losing seasons. They have gone to a bowl all eight seasons with a 5-3 bowl record.

In their last eight seasons in the Big 12, TAMU averaged 6.75 wins a year, a low of 4 wins and a high of 9, and three of the eight seasons were losing seasons, they went 1-5 in bowls during that time**.

So I think it's fair to say they have improved since joining the SEC.


** One thing that seems to have helped with bowl records is the change in conference. TAMU was 0-3 vs SEC teams in bowl games as a member of the Big 12, it is 3-1 in bowl games vs the Big 12 as a member of the SEC.

It helps when the SEC commish gets to hand pick the matchups for bowl season after the Sugar Bowl selection.

Well, the SEC is often at a disadvantage in the non-NY6 bowls, because it usually puts multiple teams in the NY6, which means weaker teams get bumped up to better non-NY6 bowls. For example, last year the Big 12 put two teams in the NY6, the SEC put four teams in. So that means down the bowl ladder, if a bowl is supposed to be "SEC #3 vs Big 12 #3", what happens is it ends up being SEC #5 vs Big 12 #3. That has happened a lot in the CFP and BCS era.

(07-27-2020 08:22 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 10:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 10:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 07:35 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  It helps when the SEC commish gets to hand pick the matchups for bowl season after the Sugar Bowl selection.

Well, the SEC is often at a disadvantage in the non-NY6 bowls, because it usually puts multiple teams in the NY6, which means weaker teams get bumped up to better non-NY6 bowls. For example, last year the Big 12 put two teams in the NY6, the SEC put four teams in. So that means down the bowl ladder, if a bowl is supposed to be "SEC #3 vs Big 12 #3", what happens is it ends up being SEC #5 vs Big 12 #3. That has happened a lot in the CFP and BCS era.

(07-26-2020 10:32 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 12:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The Big East, like Notre Dame to a certain extent, faded in power as the print media that favored them due to circulation numbers in those regions faded. As the media became wholly electronic and national in scope regional circulation didn't mean as much as the ability to draw a crowd nationally. So the new goal was national eyeballs on the tube for advertising, instead of circulation of regional newspapers which were syndicated.

So there was a massive shift away from hyping smaller private schools with very regional alumni bases to hyping larger state schools with massive alumni bases, and hyping schools with historical brand recognition. And that methodology has worked so well that the historical brands with a few exceptions have monetized themselves even more effectively creating an even larger gulf between themselves and the rest resulting in a self perpetuating cycle of brand boosting, ad revenue to their carriers, more money, more exposure, and more brand boosting until the nation is fatigued with them. What has saved Notre Dame while relegating the former Big East powers to the archives of those no longer relevant, is Notre Dame is a historical brand with a national audience.

So now that College Football is reduced to Oklahoma, Ohio State, and Alabama, with the ACC's rise of Clemson as the would be fresh face, and now that the SEC can muster a fresh face often enough to make it seem legitimate, and Notre Dame can string together a run often enough to remain an alternative, the new network driving force is to consolidate the brands so they play each other more often in an effort to drive revenue maximizing games. And by the process of elimination this is supposed to bring fresh faces back into contention.

So from the time of the "Big East" those schools have not substantially changed in quality, they've just been abandoned by their failing press and their names have been lost in the fervor for national darlings and instead of dying on the field they have slowly died from lack of exposure.

There are no, and never have been, power conferences. What are called power conferences are those which group more nationally recognized brands together. And those which group the most are rewarded the best, hyped the most for ratings, and are therefore naturally inclined to get the best recruits which also want the most exposure in hopes of getting the most tube time and therefore the best signing bonuses when they turn pro.

And guess what (this is addressed to Bill Dazzle)? They are going to come from those teams that have the most people watching them and have the most exciting venues, which make the products being advertised nationally seem cooler than those of their competitors.

What the SEC bellyached about for years was the AP selection of the national champ. Why? It wasn't about the best football team in America, it was about the football teams in America which sold the most newspapers, and those weren't in the South. When the BCS was instituted the perceptions of who had the best teams shifted dramatically because of that 7 year run of titles by the SEC. The CFP hasn't really changed that.

When that happened the West Coast simply tuned out. The Big 10 got serious about competing, and Florida State and Clemson became the anti-SEC darlings and Oklahoma was tossed into that mix as well with hopes for Texas.

Now I'm sure it is not lost on you but, the message should be indelibly clear. "Power" conferences don't exist. Those with the best collection of "Power" schools make enough to retain power schools. Those who don't are encouraged to relocate. And none of it is about football. It's about ratings, which have replaced circulation, and nothing has changed except that regions matter less and national draw matters more. Beauty pageants were once in the Spring and football was in the Fall, and there wasn't a dime's bit of difference between in effect and both were wholly commercial.

This sentence is the key takeaway.

"What are called power conferences are those which group more nationally recognized brands together."

I'm not sure I've every considered it this way ... but it's true.

In short, the Big Ten and the SEC "group the most nationally recognized brands" in football compared to the other leagues. As such, they truly are the only two "full power football leagues" (with all due respect to the other three P5 conferences).

When I read a thoughtful and detailed assessment by JRsec, I mentally picture a man with writing skills and personality that combine elements of Chuck Klosterman, Cornell West, William Blake, Ray Wylie Hubbard and Larry David.

Always a treat, indeed.

So you are saying my writing on contemporary culture advocates for a black radical dragon devouring situational humor while "I'm 41 and drinking in a honkey tonk just kicking Hippie's asses and raising hell!" What an eclectic creative dark bastard you must think I am!

Indeed. It's the most high of compliments I have given to a poster on this board.

And I find that odd since I don't edit for style, barely edit for grammar, and mostly edit because the program here can't keep up with keystrokes at 100 or so wpm and so frequently drops a letter, or letters, or just doesn't read the endings of contractions.

And here I thought the Judy Collins approach wasn't dark at all as I was just looking "at clouds from both sides now."

I'll tell you what's dark Bill. Americans are having to take a long hard look at what we have been becoming because right now the illusion of sport has been removed from our field of vision and as the hangover of a distracted mind lifts, as it does after the revelry of a drunken night with a strange woman, and we are seeing the faces next to us without makeup, with slobber on the pillowcase, and getting that first waft of morning breath, and asking that ubiquitous question, "What the hell happened here?" And then the disgust and self loathing sets in as to how we could have let ourselves go so badly as to arrive at this point.

The cold wet rag of our actual status in the world is about to slap our sleepy faces to jolt us completely to our senses and before our day is over we will turn again to that all knowing unseen entity most commonly called God, and ask in all humility, "Pleas help me get through this!"

And if that happens Bill, maybe we return to some form of tolerance if for no other reason than the commonality of our transgressions and the absolute and universal need of grace.

Under our nuclear umbrella we have had an orgy of self indulgence that denied the fragility of our way of life in a hungry and hostile world all the while believing that what was unthinkable to use could somehow save us. How deluded is that?

Football has been an image of our strength and it is now being trashed by circumstances beyond our control on the micro and macro levels. On the micro level it has become a medium for unwanted reminders of social issues, and on a macro level it has been shut down by a force we cannot see leaving us to ponder the intent. But in both cases it crashes the illusion of strength and vitality as few things could.

Realignment has been fascinating to watch sociologically. It contains multiple fan theories as to why their program is being promoted, demoted, or destroyed. And virtually none of these theories addresses the simple fact that corporations saw a great way to get their names in front of millions of Americans and since they took it over and realized its profit potential and its depth and breadth of reach they have been commercializing it so that it would become an added voice to the very things people wished to escape.

Cold wet rag meets sleepy hungover face.

And somewhere in the back of my mind I hear my father's voice when I was 10 years old on a Saturday morning when he literally would toss that cold wet rag onto my sleepy face and would say, "Off your butt and on your feet! Out of the shade and into the heat! Let's go! We have work to do!"

Your reference, JRsec, to the hypothetical night of revelry followed by a morning of unease reminds of the time I awoke with a woman I once dated many years ago — both of us grossly hungover. She remarked that my definition-lacking visage reminded her of that of a Sesame Street muppet; my neuroses, that of Woody Allen; my effete manner, that of late and legendary British actor John Williams (who offers a stellar performance in Alfred Hitchcock's classic Dial M for Murder); my fondness of the bottle, that of former Pogues front man Shane MacGowan. She then — in an almost disgusting manner — said bluntly, "I don't even know why I date you."

I paused, wryly smiled, and quipped, "Because I can off the top of my head, and with ease, quickly create and recite a limerick that references foot juggling, America's most handsome skycrapers and a vegetarian diet — and make it sound alternatingly poetic yet sexually disturbing?"

Then she paused herself and coyly smiled ... and within 30 seconds or so, my fair lady and I undertook a "conference realignment" of a different type.

(Nice job with the Judy Collins reference, too.)

(07-25-2020 10:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 07:35 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 09:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-23-2020 09:38 PM)Mav Wrote:  A&M has had Manziel and has been mediocre otherwise.

A&M has averaged 8.3 wins per season in the SEC, and their worst season has been 7 wins with a best of 11, and no losing seasons. They have gone to a bowl all eight seasons with a 5-3 bowl record.

In their last eight seasons in the Big 12, TAMU averaged 6.75 wins a year, a low of 4 wins and a high of 9, and three of the eight seasons were losing seasons, they went 1-5 in bowls during that time**.

So I think it's fair to say they have improved since joining the SEC.


** One thing that seems to have helped with bowl records is the change in conference. TAMU was 0-3 vs SEC teams in bowl games as a member of the Big 12, it is 3-1 in bowl games vs the Big 12 as a member of the SEC.

It helps when the SEC commish gets to hand pick the matchups for bowl season after the Sugar Bowl selection.

Well, the SEC is often at a disadvantage in the non-NY6 bowls, because it usually puts multiple teams in the NY6, which means weaker teams get bumped up to better non-NY6 bowls. For example, last year the Big 12 put two teams in the NY6, the SEC put four teams in. So that means down the bowl ladder, if a bowl is supposed to be "SEC #3 vs Big 12 #3", what happens is it ends up being SEC #5 vs Big 12 #3. That has happened a lot in the CFP and BCS era.

(07-27-2020 10:14 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 11:13 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 10:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 07:35 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(07-24-2020 09:52 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  A&M has averaged 8.3 wins per season in the SEC, and their worst season has been 7 wins with a best of 11, and no losing seasons. They have gone to a bowl all eight seasons with a 5-3 bowl record.

In their last eight seasons in the Big 12, TAMU averaged 6.75 wins a year, a low of 4 wins and a high of 9, and three of the eight seasons were losing seasons, they went 1-5 in bowls during that time**.

So I think it's fair to say they have improved since joining the SEC.


** One thing that seems to have helped with bowl records is the change in conference. TAMU was 0-3 vs SEC teams in bowl games as a member of the Big 12, it is 3-1 in bowl games vs the Big 12 as a member of the SEC.

It helps when the SEC commish gets to hand pick the matchups for bowl season after the Sugar Bowl selection.

Well, the SEC is often at a disadvantage in the non-NY6 bowls, because it usually puts multiple teams in the NY6, which means weaker teams get bumped up to better non-NY6 bowls. For example, last year the Big 12 put two teams in the NY6, the SEC put four teams in. So that means down the bowl ladder, if a bowl is supposed to be "SEC #3 vs Big 12 #3", what happens is it ends up being SEC #5 vs Big 12 #3. That has happened a lot in the CFP and BCS era.

(07-27-2020 08:22 AM)bill dazzle Wrote:  

(07-26-2020 10:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-25-2020 10:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, the SEC is often at a disadvantage in the non-NY6 bowls, because it usually puts multiple teams in the NY6, which means weaker teams get bumped up to better non-NY6 bowls. For example, last year the Big 12 put two teams in the NY6, the SEC put four teams in. So that means down the bowl ladder, if a bowl is supposed to be "SEC #3 vs Big 12 #3", what happens is it ends up being SEC #5 vs Big 12 #3. That has happened a lot in the CFP and BCS era.

(07-26-2020 10:32 PM)bill dazzle Wrote:  This sentence is the key takeaway.

"What are called power conferences are those which group more nationally recognized brands together."

I'm not sure I've every considered it this way ... but it's true.

In short, the Big Ten and the SEC "group the most nationally recognized brands" in football compared to the other leagues. As such, they truly are the only two "full power football leagues" (with all due respect to the other three P5 conferences).

When I read a thoughtful and detailed assessment by JRsec, I mentally picture a man with writing skills and personality that combine elements of Chuck Klosterman, Cornell West, William Blake, Ray Wylie Hubbard and Larry David.

Always a treat, indeed.

So you are saying my writing on contemporary culture advocates for a black radical dragon devouring situational humor while "I'm 41 and drinking in a honkey tonk just kicking Hippie's asses and raising hell!" What an eclectic creative dark bastard you must think I am!

Indeed. It's the most high of compliments I have given to a poster on this board.

And I find that odd since I don't edit for style, barely edit for grammar, and mostly edit because the program here can't keep up with keystrokes at 100 or so wpm and so frequently drops a letter, or letters, or just doesn't read the endings of contractions.

And here I thought the Judy Collins approach wasn't dark at all as I was just looking "at clouds from both sides now."

I'll tell you what's dark Bill. Americans are having to take a long hard look at what we have been becoming because right now the illusion of sport has been removed from our field of vision and as the hangover of a distracted mind lifts, as it does after the revelry of a drunken night with a strange woman, and we are seeing the faces next to us without makeup, with slobber on the pillowcase, and getting that first waft of morning breath, and asking that ubiquitous question, "What the hell happened here?" And then the disgust and self loathing sets in as to how we could have let ourselves go so badly as to arrive at this point.

The cold wet rag of our actual status in the world is about to slap our sleepy faces to jolt us completely to our senses and before our day is over we will turn again to that all knowing unseen entity most commonly called God, and ask in all humility, "Pleas help me get through this!"

And if that happens Bill, maybe we return to some form of tolerance if for no other reason than the commonality of our transgressions and the absolute and universal need of grace.

Under our nuclear umbrella we have had an orgy of self indulgence that denied the fragility of our way of life in a hungry and hostile world all the while believing that what was unthinkable to use could somehow save us. How deluded is that?

Football has been an image of our strength and it is now being trashed by circumstances beyond our control on the micro and macro levels. On the micro level it has become a medium for unwanted reminders of social issues, and on a macro level it has been shut down by a force we cannot see leaving us to ponder the intent. But in both cases it crashes the illusion of strength and vitality as few things could.

Realignment has been fascinating to watch sociologically. It contains multiple fan theories as to why their program is being promoted, demoted, or destroyed. And virtually none of these theories addresses the simple fact that corporations saw a great way to get their names in front of millions of Americans and since they took it over and realized its profit potential and its depth and breadth of reach they have been commercializing it so that it would become an added voice to the very things people wished to escape.

Cold wet rag meets sleepy hungover face.

And somewhere in the back of my mind I hear my father's voice when I was 10 years old on a Saturday morning when he literally would toss that cold wet rag onto my sleepy face and would say, "Off your butt and on your feet! Out of the shade and into the heat! Let's go! We have work to do!"

Your reference, JRsec, to the hypothetical night of revelry followed by a morning of unease reminds of the time I awoke with a woman I once dated many years ago — both of us grossly hungover. She remarked that my definition-lacking visage reminded her of that of a Sesame Street muppet; my neuroses, that of Woody Allen; my effete manner, that of late and legendary British actor John Williams (who offers a stellar performance in Alfred Hitchcock's classic Dial M for Murder); my fondness of the bottle, that of former Pogues front man Shane MacGowan. She then — in an almost disgusting manner — said bluntly, "I don't even know why I date you."

I paused, wryly smiled, and quipped, "Because I can off the top of my head, and with ease, quickly create and recite a limerick that references foot juggling, America's most handsome skycrapers and a vegetarian diet — and make it sound alternatingly poetic yet sexually disturbing?"

Then she paused herself and coyly smiled ... and within 30 seconds or so, my fair lady and I undertook a "conference realignment" of a different type.

(Nice job with the Judy Collins reference, too.)

Obviously you were resigned to a congress of loutish abandon. Let it be noted that a missionary man should never engage a woman with ugly feet.

But sincerely, kudos for making such a unique approach a cunning yet lingual success! Truly word power made easy!

(07-27-2020 08:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-27-2020 05:54 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I would say by 2011 I could see the Big East being a "Big Mess". Once they invited TCU that was the last straw. I begged the ACC and Big Ten to "rescue" Pitt, Syracuse, and UConn. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/8440...-and-uconn

A rather prescient post back then, as the ACC did invite Syracuse and Pitt just a week after you made it.

I always thought TCU was a bold and daring choice that clearly pushed the football needle for a very brief moment, though I know it annoyed the basketball fans. And iirc, the vote wasn’t unanimous, which, at the time didn’t seemed to project the dysfunction it probably should have to me.

But, “last straw?” I thought the Villanova plan was pretty horrific and damaging.

The only thing I didn’t like about the TCU grab was that anyone who really knew TCU knew they had a school that desperately wanted back in with Texas. And I got the impression they wouldn’t help the conference out in the future if it meant dipping back into the state (and maybe they are a reason Houston isn’t in the Big XII now after that failed search), but that they were like a UMFL: the Big East was a stepping stone to a preferred conference, and would bolt if they had the chance. And, well, they never played a game in the Big East/AAC...