(02-10-2022 12:00 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Even as someone that has focused a lot on the revenue side of conference realignment from the first day that I started following this subject, I'm also a firm believer that the search for stability is often an even larger reason for conference realignment (or, on the flip side, the decision to not engage in conference realignment).

For instance, Nebraska and Colorado may have been able to earn more revenue by staying in the Big 12 for several years compared to what they were receiving in the Big Ten and Pac-12, respectively. In fact, that may still be the case today with respect to Colorado. However, what is the value of that additional short-term revenue compared to long-term stability in a league that isn't constantly under siege in realignment? You can be assured that whatever doubt from any school that left the Big 12 since 2010 was completely gone when Texas and Oklahoma announced their move to the SEC.

They all knew that they were living in a house on an earthquake fault line. There are many houses that could gain a lot of value in the short-term in an earthquake zone: see coastal California. You could also go decades without seeing any type of earthquake. The risk is that you never know when that earthquake is going to hit and eradicate all of the value of your home. That was essentially how everyone was in the Big 12: the earthquake fault line was Texas and everyone had to react any time they even thought about moving. It's not like it was irrational: the Big 12 itself was created out of UT's decision to move out of the SWC and multiple Big 12 schools signed paperwork to create the new Pac-16 before UT pulled out. Schools with the wherewithal to move out of that earthquake zone rationally took that opportunity even if it entailed a short-term revenue hit.

I agree with this. "Peace of mind" is an important thing, both individually and institutionally. When you don't have it, it's hard to enjoy life. And that comes from stability in a good situation. When you live on a fault-line (good analogy), as many conferences are, then you experience anxiety and stress. UNL, Colorado, Rutgers, Maryland are all in much more stable situations than 10 years ago. Missouri and TAMU are too.

Eliminating that stress and worry can be worth a good deal of money. It is for me, that's why I buy insurance on much of my property. I'm buying peace of mind, money well spent, to me.

(02-10-2022 11:37 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(02-10-2022 10:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-10-2022 12:37 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-10-2022 12:31 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-09-2022 08:53 PM)AstAteMan Wrote:  According to one Georgia State professor, No.

https://www.tampabay.com/sports/bulls/20...-research/

Thats an idiotic generalization. Realignment always has winners and losers. Perhaps---taken as a total group---there was no difference. But I can assure you TCU and Utah are most certainly better off. Its hard to argue that UConn is not worse off. So---moving sometimes has a huge payoff---and not getting to move also can have a very negative effect.

The piece said that UCF didn't see a performance bump. Are you serious? Their program is so much better now than when they were in CUSA.

You must have read a different article than the one I read. Nowhere in the linked article does it say that UCF didn't see a performance bump.

She does list UCF as not getting a revenue boost, along with all the others schools who changed leagues in 2012-15 aside from Missouri & Rutgers. I have no reason to think she isn't correct within the 2012-15 time period she looked at, but I don't see how UCF wouldn't be called a major winner in realignment if you look at the bigger picture. Even if they made LESS money in the AAC, does anybody think they'd be on their way to the Big XII now if they had stayed in Conference USA? To me UCF & Cincinnati both improved their situation incrementally each time they moved, setting themselves up nicely for the pending Power 5 promotion.

Yes, the article says that she says UCF didn't get a revenue boost, by way of giving an example of one of the things schools sometimes consider in a realignment decision. That's a far cry from suggesting that their performance didn't improve significantly, or that they shouldn't be viewed as a winner in realignment. I'd be slow to criticize the study based on how some sports writer summarizes her academic thesis.

(02-10-2022 04:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-10-2022 11:37 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(02-10-2022 10:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-10-2022 12:37 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(02-10-2022 12:31 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Thats an idiotic generalization. Realignment always has winners and losers. Perhaps---taken as a total group---there was no difference. But I can assure you TCU and Utah are most certainly better off. Its hard to argue that UConn is not worse off. So---moving sometimes has a huge payoff---and not getting to move also can have a very negative effect.

The piece said that UCF didn't see a performance bump. Are you serious? Their program is so much better now than when they were in CUSA.

You must have read a different article than the one I read. Nowhere in the linked article does it say that UCF didn't see a performance bump.

She does list UCF as not getting a revenue boost, along with all the others schools who changed leagues in 2012-15 aside from Missouri & Rutgers. I have no reason to think she isn't correct within the 2012-15 time period she looked at, but I don't see how UCF wouldn't be called a major winner in realignment if you look at the bigger picture. Even if they made LESS money in the AAC, does anybody think they'd be on their way to the Big XII now if they had stayed in Conference USA? To me UCF & Cincinnati both improved their situation incrementally each time they moved, setting themselves up nicely for the pending Power 5 promotion.

Yes, the article says that she says UCF didn't get a revenue boost, by way of giving an example of one of the things schools sometimes consider in a realignment decision. That's a far cry from suggesting that their performance didn't improve significantly, or that they shouldn't be viewed as a winner in realignment. I'd be slow to criticize the study based on how some sports writer summarizes her academic thesis.

Even if you want to justify her ridiculously small window... You can go to the Knight Commission site and play with the numbers yourself. UCF absolutely saw improved revenues.

According to Knight Commission:
2010 UCF Revenue: $40M
2020 UCF Revenue: $68.8M

I guess you could argue the FBS median revenues went up too. But UCF closed some of the gap.
2010 FBS Median Revenue: $46M (UCF 6M below)
2020 FBS Median Revenue: $70.6M (UCF 1.8M below)

https://cafidatabase.knightcommission.or...ion_data-1

(02-10-2022 06:24 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

(02-10-2022 04:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-10-2022 11:37 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(02-10-2022 10:38 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(02-10-2022 12:37 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The piece said that UCF didn't see a performance bump. Are you serious? Their program is so much better now than when they were in CUSA.

You must have read a different article than the one I read. Nowhere in the linked article does it say that UCF didn't see a performance bump.

She does list UCF as not getting a revenue boost, along with all the others schools who changed leagues in 2012-15 aside from Missouri & Rutgers. I have no reason to think she isn't correct within the 2012-15 time period she looked at, but I don't see how UCF wouldn't be called a major winner in realignment if you look at the bigger picture. Even if they made LESS money in the AAC, does anybody think they'd be on their way to the Big XII now if they had stayed in Conference USA? To me UCF & Cincinnati both improved their situation incrementally each time they moved, setting themselves up nicely for the pending Power 5 promotion.

Yes, the article says that she says UCF didn't get a revenue boost, by way of giving an example of one of the things schools sometimes consider in a realignment decision. That's a far cry from suggesting that their performance didn't improve significantly, or that they shouldn't be viewed as a winner in realignment. I'd be slow to criticize the study based on how some sports writer summarizes her academic thesis.

Even if you want to justify her ridiculously small window... You can go to the Knight Commission site and play with the numbers yourself. UCF absolutely saw improved revenues.

According to Knight Commission:
2010 UCF Revenue: $40M
2020 UCF Revenue: $68.8M

I guess you could argue the FBS median revenues went up too. But UCF closed some of the gap.
2010 FBS Median Revenue: $46M (UCF 6M below)
2020 FBS Median Revenue: $70.6M (UCF 1.8M below)

https://cafidatabase.knightcommission.or...ion_data-1

Well, according to that database, of the $28m increase, about $14m is from increased fees and institutional/govt support.

Ticket sales were actually less in 2020 than in 2010. Donations did spike upwards in 2015. Corporate sponsorships were flat until around 2018 then took off too. Whether that had anything to do with the conference change in 2012 is questionable.

Also, UCF added about 15,000 students since 2010, so that will beef up revenues.

The problem is attributing causes to this. E.g. between 2000 and 2010, UCF's enrollment grew by 18,000.

As for revenue, UCF's income grew from $22m in 2005 to $40m in 2010.

So UCF was just growing very rapidly anyway - enrollment and athletic "revenue" were both surging well before 2012, so hard to attribute any of the increases of the past 9 years to the move to the AAC.

That's the same take I have with USF fans who argue the benefits of football by saying that enrollment has grown significantly since we added football. That's true, but our enrollment was also growing rapidly well before we added football.