Seems as good a place as any to post this again...
This topic relates to a different thread, but that's a good example of why you want geographic-based divisions.
The decline of Miami, V Tech, & Louisville after leaving the Big East
- Thread starter gordel1
- Start date
This topic relates to a different thread, but that's a good example of why you want geographic-based divisions.
Of course, here's the thing about that. How much has changed for these schools that switched conferences? Is Nebraska better in the Big Ten than they were in the Big 12? Colorado in the Pac 12? West Virginia in the Big 12? Missouri/A&M in the SEC? Really, most of these schools that switch conferences tend to be more or less the same as they were in their old conference. There is this myth that all you have to do is switch conference, and you will somehow automatically get better. The biggest factor as to whether or not a school is good really depends on the school itself.
On the Banks summarizes B1G attendance each week, and mentioned BC this week. They couldn't get 40,000 people to show up for Florida State, and are only getting 29-30k for their other home games.
http://www.onthebanks.com/2015/10/13/9486507/rutgers-big-ten-attendance-homecoming-penn-state
This article tries to figure out why BC attendance is so low, and (to tie this in to another thread) one of the suggested reasons is the strict tailgating policies.
http://bcgavel.com/2015/09/09/why-does-alumni-stadium-seem-so-empty/
http://www.onthebanks.com/2015/10/13/9486507/rutgers-big-ten-attendance-homecoming-penn-state
This article tries to figure out why BC attendance is so low, and (to tie this in to another thread) one of the suggested reasons is the strict tailgating policies.
http://bcgavel.com/2015/09/09/why-does-alumni-stadium-seem-so-empty/
In America you play to win. CFB is not about fun but about winning at any cost.
Rutgers has to finish 6-6 this year. I am not sure that is possible if we lose close games at home.
Winning on the road is very hard in the BIG.
We have to beat OSU at home. They are not that good this year.
Rutgers has to finish 6-6 this year. I am not sure that is possible if we lose close games at home.
Winning on the road is very hard in the BIG.
We have to beat OSU at home. They are not that good this year.
Here's the thing. If the other 12/13 in every conference uses their voting power to assure an equal field in competition.. minimizing the effects of the BIG TIME MONEY of the BIG TIME PROGRAMS.. then, over time, many programs will get a fair shot at seeing a championship.
Example: Lets assume that Jon Harbaugh (or is it Jim?) is a magic man that can bring a conference championship (or reasonable expectation of competing for one) to ANY team. Then this becomes a case of who can afford to buy his services (which is probably not true because he might not go to anything but a BIG TIME program no matter what).
So, that kind of remedy is unavailable to "smaller market" college programs. And the 12/13s have to band together to minimize the effects of all that money the big guys have. Paying players is the first thing they should completely oppose. Then add a salary cap and luxury tax to football budgets for staff and so on. ANd work in cost-of-living differences.
In all fairness, WVU has a travel schedule that is probably different than most. I'm not sure how the mileage compares to RU, but the distance they travel definitely blows the ACC teams away. I think they might need a little time to get the program used to that.
I can't imagine how we still have posts like this given that we are far worse than all of the other teams mentioned here.
Pitt, cuse and BC are not in a good situation for football imo. They are northern teams playing in a southern league that is arguably the worst top to bottom p5 football conference. They don't have real strong fan support and at least for cuse and BC don't have real good recruiting areas. VT should be fine longer term given their fan base and recruiting area.
Those stats just prove BC wasn't that great in the Big East. They had the "Flutie Hail Mary" game which is like our UL 2006 game and then a bunch of solid seasons but nothing spectacular. They were just better than RU which wasn't saying much in those days.
Are they better off now? Ask the AD's of those schools and they'll give a resounding YES. W/L may be down, but $$$ are up. Believe me, its' all about the bottom line.
Over time? It's the case now and pretty much always has been. Legit NATIONAL TITLE contenders (preseason) by conference:
B1G: OSU & MSU
ACC: Clemson & FSU
SEC: Bama, Auburn, LSU
B12: Baylor, TCU, OU
P12: UCLA, Oregon
IND: ND (because the powers that be will do whatever it takes to get them in Final 4)
Sure you have P5 teams like Utah, Michigan and Florida who jump out and surprise but also teams like Oregon and Oklahoma who don't live up to the hype. Bottom lines...usually about only 3 teams per each conference have legit shot to win it all every year. Otherwise it's "enjoy the season and hope for a good bowl destination"
Clemson is not a contender. Michigan would have to be added to the B1G list, as would Nebraska, based on history.
In the 90's (2 x 95 and 97)which is way more recent than Clemson(81). Plus they only have one and cheated to get it. You can't list them before Nebraska, who has 5.
Nebraska is always a coach away from greatness, like any blue blood.
Nebraska is always a coach away from greatness, like any blue blood.
True for the most part, but Texas A&M was a mediocre Big 12 team. They've been a pretty good SEC team. Missouri was pretty mediocre for first half of the 2000s in the Big 12, but they've won their division in the SEC 2 years in a row. Now, switching conferences didn't make them better teams. They raised their game.
They travel on a charter. What is the difference between 45 minutes to the airport and 2 hours or 4 hours to your game? In most cases, you play Saturday and back home Saturday night or very early Sunday morning. Almost all players sleep the entire flight anyway
What a lot of posters are missing is that when all of these schools were in the old Big East they received much more visibility than they do now. They had more TV exposure to northeast and new england audiences than they do now. I live in Boston and there just isn't much interest in atlantic coast schools ..Also with more college games on TV , the ACC has been drowned out. BC in particular has been hurt very badly by the move to the ACC. Not only has their football program suffered but so has their basketball program. Some posters have mentioned the early success of some schools when they joined the ACC but I believe it was just a carryover from their Big East affiliation. As time went on their recruiting suffered.
Exactly...you hit the nail on the head....No ones gonna feel it more than BC or Cuse..too much of outliers...isolations gonna bury them.
If my memory serves me right Miami never played a full BE schedule. So, leaving the Big East had nothing to do with Miami's demise. Their demise and downfall can be argued on multiple fronts. I blame University President Donna Shalala (sp). She was heavy handed in cleaning up the program and since then they've been mediocre at best.
Thats a little misleading.
Miami went to the ACC basically because they knew they couldnt keep up their then current standards of cheating that they needed to win, and thus would be losing tons of money by staying in the Big East playing relative nobodies. In other words - going to the ACC was the effect, not the cause.
VT dominated the ACC for the first half a decade there at least. Mutliple BCS games. I would guess that its simply time to for a new coach there. Maybe they are just regressing to their pre-Vick/Beamer mean.
Louisville - its their second year.They were good last year. Its unlikely that playing in the ACC has killed their program in just two years. Its more likely that they overperformed in the Bridgewater era because of Teddy on O, and Strong's awesome Ds, and now are returning to the kind of expectations for a team in a decent conference where they cant dominate just on scheme alone.
I could buy that WVU ending up in the Big 12 has hurt them some, since they have no real draw to Texans, and now no real draw to kids from PA/NJ/MD either, but you would have ot look at their recruiting trends to see if thats right. The Big 12 not managing to reel in Pitt or Louisville (or both) was a huge blow to them.
You made some excellent points. Something else that people have missed or failed to acknowledge is that Pitt has been no worse since moving to the ACC and might end up having their best season this year since 2009 when they started 9-1 before losing to Cincinnati and West Virginia before beating UNC in the Belk to finish 10-3. Pitt's final two seasons in the Big East were 6-7 campaigns and they have been 7-6, 6-7, and are now 4-1 in the ACC (17-14 since the move).
See, this is the problem I have with these conversations. People try to twist it around to get the result they want. This thread was started exactly because of wins and losses. Go look at the title. If you are going judge success by money, then Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College are much better off. The Big East only paid out $6-7 million max, and I don't think it was even that much when those teams left in 2004/05. The ACC now pays out $20+ million a year. So if you making this about a money argument, then that undermines the whole premise of the thread. That's why I brought up the teams like Nebraska and West Virginia, who aren't doing any better in the new conferences, actually worse.
A&M hasn't really raised their game. They had the one 11-2 year, but they were 9-4, 8-5 the last two years. Not bad, but that's about what they were in the Big 12. Missouri did the same thing in the Big 12. The won divisions titles in 07/08. Their record in the Big 12 was similar to the SEC. This is the point. People just keep saying things that aren't really backed up by the facts. They are basing their opinions on perceptions and hazy memory. When you start looking at the actual record, you don't really see too much difference between these teams when they were in one conference or another. A couple have done better, a couple have done worse (i.e. Miami), and the rest are pretty much the same. The problem is that some posters have an agenda, and want to twist around the facts to back up that agenda.
Again, the facts don't back you up. Virginia Tech's "carry over" lasted 8 years. Boston College's "carry over" was due to Tom O'Brien. Before he got there, Boston College was mediocre in the Big East. After he left (along with Matt Ryan), they were mediocre in the ACC. Their overall record in the Big East does not point to anything about the conference that made them better, nor anything in the ACC that makes them worse. This is simply a case of trying to see what you want to see.
Also, remember in 1991, no one would touch Miami -- except for the Big East, to help start the football conference. They finally had enough appeal to the ACC to take a chance on them for the 2003 expansion.
Texas A&M was 25-25 in the 4 years before Sumlin got there. Dennis Franchione was 32-28 from 2007-2011. That's the very definition of mediocre. Kevin Sumlin is 33-11. That's not mediocre. That's raising your game. After having a losing season their first year in the SEC, Missouri won their division twice. That's raising your game.
"Until Sumlin got there" is my point. If Franchione was still coaching A&M in the SEC, they would still be mediocre. It's the coach, not the conference.
Missouri won their division twice in the Big 12. Their performance in the SEC is on par with that they were doing before they left the Big 12. That's not "raising your game," because they were already doing that to begin with. Again, that's not "conference magic."
On Campus championship games help too. Even in Chestnut Hill that game would have had a capacity crowd. Or at least a site for your championship that makes some sense.
The decline of any of the teams are due to different circumstances. Louisville has a new freshman QB this year but they might come back with more experience. This might also be the case with Rutgers with a new QB and OL. BC was good for a few years when they had QB Ryan but due to coaching changes was terrible for 7-8 years. Now they have an coach that can keep them around 6 wins which is considered success for them. Cuse hasn't been good for at least 10 years and won't be for another 10 years. Pitt has been bad due the coaches and might get better with the new coach.
In reality the quality of play of teams doesn't change all that much usually when they change conferences, although their records sometimes change for the worse for a couple of seasons if they move to a harder schedule and need to adjust to tougher opponents with different styles. Miami is an exception and their demise might be related to moving to the ACC but no other team has dropped as much as they have. Pitt was mediocre in the Big East and it's mediocre in the ACC; same with Syracuse and Boston College. Louisville lost their star QB and has a new coach; they probably would've struggled in the Big East for a while. We were mediocre in the Big East and so far we're mediocre in the Big Ten. Same thing with Maryland.
