Biggest winners, losers five years after realignment hell broke loose

[Harry]

Five years ago this week, college athletics lost its mind. Or at least it seemed that way in the moment.

On June 10, 2010, Colorado left the Big 12 for the Pac-12 and Boise State joined the Mountain West. The next day, Nebraska officially accepted a Big Ten invitation. And all the while, the entire industry waited for one school, Texas, to decide whether it would follow through on a stunning development that would radically transform one conference, the Pac-10, while rendering another, the Big 12, extinct.

Finally, on the morning of June 14, word came that Texas had decided at the 11^th hour to stay put, halting the expected exodus of four other Big 12 schools. College sports' conference missile crisis ground to a halt, but the game of musical chairs it touched off would continue for several years. The industry has finally stabilized itself again only now.

Today, 43 FBS schools -- 33.6 percent of the current membership -- compete in a different conference than they did five years ago. Along the way, one league (the WAC) died, while another (the former Big East) lost its name (it's now the American Athletic Conference) and its privileged postseason status. All 10 remaining conferences include at least one team they did not claim in 2010.

Interestingly, Texas, the school once at the epicenter of realignment mania, is arguably no better or worse off today than it was five years ago. On the one hand, staying in the Big 12 allowed the school to launch the Longhorn Network, which, despite its distribution struggles, affords UT an average $15 million in annual revenue. Combined with its roughly $25 million share of Big 12 revenue, the 'Horns easily cash more TV and postseason money than any other school.

On the other hand, Texas' athletic department, a picture of stability for the first decade of this century, has cast away its longtime athletic director (DeLoss Dodds), football coach (Mack Brown) and men's basketball coach (Rick Barnes) all since 2013. Not only have the 'Horns struggled on the field, they've seen three formerly downtrodden in-state programs -- TCU, Baylor and Texas A&M -- steal their thunder.

And two of those, TCU (Big 12) and Texas A&M (SEC), have benefitted immeasurably by jumping to other conferences -- moves that saw their first seeds planted during that tumultuous week in June 2010.

Read more:  http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/texas-longhorns-aggies-missouri-tigers-sec-big-12-pac-12-realignment-chaos-061115

[Andrew]

NCAA needs to go to a promotion and relegation system based on performance overall in multiple sports for men and women. 

Of course this is America and we would never dare try to be fair and balanced. It's all about the money. It's why MLS will never thrive. 

 

It it would be simple to try to have 6 major conferences based on geographic location and 6 minor conferences based on location who would be tied with the major conference in their region. Two teams move up and two teams move down per year based on conference championships. 

Edited June 11, 2015 by Andrew

[oldguystudent]

while the Aggies will play just five games in their own stadium.

Well now, isn't that a travesty?

[Cerebus]

 

Well now, isn't that a travesty?

​Well they are getting paid a combined ten million dollars to play a game at NRG Stadium and a game at Jerryworld.  I think most Mean Green fans would be happy to play five home games at Apogee if it meant we got those two payouts while playing in cities with huge alumni bases.

 

[Harry]

I would have predicted UT with the Longhorn Network would be a big winner coming out of all this but it didn't work out that way.

[10Eagle10]

 

Well now, isn't that a travesty?

​

​Well they are getting paid a combined ten million dollars to play a game at NRG Stadium and a game at Jerryworld.  I think most Mean Green fans would be happy to play five home games at Apogee if it meant we got those two payouts while playing in cities with huge alumni bases.

 

​oldguy,

the article is referring to the New Mexico State Aggies when it says a team will host just 5 games.

 

the Texas A&M version plays 7 home games and 2 neutral site games, as pointed out be Cerebus. 

Texas A&M 2015 schedule

New Mexico State 2015 schedule

[Harry]

​

​oldguy,

the article is referring to the New Mexico State Aggies when it says a team will host just 5 games.

 

the Texas A&M version plays 7 home games and 2 neutral site games, as pointed out be Cerebus. 

Texas A&M 2015 schedule

New Mexico State 2015 schedule

Good catch Eagle10.  So basically they have 9 home games.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Harry

[oldguystudent]

​

​oldguy,

the article is referring to the New Mexico State Aggies when it says a team will host just 5 games.

 

 

​That didn't escape me at all.  It was just awkward to quote the rest of the sentence to catch the New Mexico part.  The intended purpose with UNT90 bait.

[untjim1995]

To me, the clear winners in realignment were Rutgers and Utah tied for first--both went to great conferences that are in solid shape for the long haul. Next, I would put Texas A&M and Missouri, just because they dumped the dying Big XII for the SEC. Then, I would put Pitt and Syracuse, both of whom jumped to the ACC, where their football and basketball programs are great fits. Finally, TCU gets mentioned here, too--talk about making more money than they ever dreamed of before, while still having a solid program. Only reasont hey aren't higher is the uncertainty of the Big XII beyond its GOR in 2025, if not sooner, which could push them right back to the G5 again. But for now, TCU is a clear winner, too.

I think Nebraska, Colorado, and Maryland are even after their moves--money and conferences might be upgrades, but it hasn't been as huge of a gain as they thought or they are perceived to have in the eyes of most college fans.

Next, are the first realignment losers: Clearly, if they do not get to align with another P5 conference, UConn and Cincy got the shaft. Next is West Virginia, who may get paid more in the Big XII and avoided G5 land in the AAC , but their fanbase cannot travel to away games very easily, nor do any of their fans care about Big XII teams, and they lost their long-time rival, Pitt. Finally, I think any Big XII program not named Texas, Oklahoma, or Kansas and the schools that can get aligned with them politically to go to another conference are losers here, too, even if it hasn't happened yet. Baylor, TCU, and Iowa State are in deep trouble if the others leave to go elsewhere, leaving the big XII to be the Big East Part II. Kansas State, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech better pray their state legislatures can make a deal to get their schools into a conference with their big brothers, which seems iffy to me at this point, as conference realignment is about TV sets, not making sure that you have travel partners. The wrench in the wheel for the Big XII's smaller schools is if Texas goes independent for football, so they can keep the LHN, but try to control their schedule better than they do now--the Longhorns hate their home schedule these days if you read their message boards. I could see them aligning with BYU and Notre Dame for ongoing games, plus making deals with Baylor and Tech to stay on their schedules, as well as OU. They would still play Rice, and could add either A&M or Arkansas to their schedule, depending on if they will play Texas every season (or at all, A&M). It could happen, if the Big XII fails to get anyone into the college football playoff in the upcoming years, but I also concede its a long-shot. But going independent, even for a few years, could free Texas from the political leech that is Baylor, as well as any potential Tech-clinging they feel they have to keep to move anywhere, such as the Big Ten, which called Tech's inclusion "The Tech Problem" since they are absolutely unacceptable to the Big Ten.

The remaining losers are anyone not considered P5--the biggest losers of all in everything that is college athletics.