More conference realignment talk

[Lennys Tap]

Superbar

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Superbar

LOL, you're a little late.  It's been here since August.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

This article popped up in my Google news feed this morning.  Sounded Scoop worthy for discussion.

Does conference realignment pay off? No, according to this research
A Georgia State professor researched the last wave and found no improvements in money, wins or applications for schools that changed conferences.
https://www.tampabay.com/sports/bulls/2022/02/03/does-conference-realignment-pay-off-no-according-to-this-research/

[WhiteTrash]

This article popped up in my Google news feed this morning.  Sounded Scoop worthy for discussion.

Does conference realignment pay off? No, according to this research
A Georgia State professor researched the last wave and found no improvements in money, wins or applications for schools that changed conferences.
https://www.tampabay.com/sports/bulls/2022/02/03/does-conference-realignment-pay-off-no-according-to-this-research/

Very interesting. I think there are some definitive winners in changing conferences like MU, Butler, TCU, Baylor and Utah but the rest seems like just reshuffling the deck. TA&M, Colorado, 'Cuse, Pitt and VT seem to be about the same or less of a brand than they used to be. Many believe Texas and OU will go from competing for championships in a P5 conference and the Playoffs to middle of the road teams in the SEC.

[Scoop Snoop]

This is very enlightening. The loss of traditional rivalries was too often treated casually in the pursuit of perceived improved status in another conference.  With 20-20 hindsight, it's amazing that (apparently) more studies like this were not conducted prior to the decision(s) to change conferences. College sports are a multi -million-dollar business, and this analysis makes it clear that due diligence studies/analysis were not always properly conducted. Business 101.

[MU82]

Had to go to a periodontist yesterday. The doc walks in, sees my MU shirt, and says, "Marquette, huh? You're having a really nice season with Shaka." We chitchat for a minute and he then says, "I'm a Syracuse guy. I wish like hell we never left the Big East. We had some great games with you. I miss the Big East."

If that's not proof that the ACC has been bad for 'Cuse, I don't know what is!

[Herman Cain]

I think the loss of rivalries has hurt a lot of program.

Nebraska was a great case in point. They were near the top of the Big 12. They had their big rivalry with OU .  Plus all the others teams they played were within easy driving distance for their own fan base.  Texas was on the schedule every year .

Now they are stuck at the bottom of the Big Ten playing a whole bunch of teams where there is no historical context.

[forgetful]

This article popped up in my Google news feed this morning.  Sounded Scoop worthy for discussion.

Does conference realignment pay off? No, according to this research
A Georgia State professor researched the last wave and found no improvements in money, wins or applications for schools that changed conferences.
https://www.tampabay.com/sports/bulls/2022/02/03/does-conference-realignment-pay-off-no-according-to-this-research/

I think if she redoes this analysis for teams like USF and UCF in this next cycle, she will find they indeed benefit, whereas teams like Oklahoma/Texas break even at best, with the rest of the teams in the Big12 being big losers, and the SEC with no net benefit.

These conference realignments benefit few, but hurt many brands.

[Skip Intro]

Had to go to a periodontist yesterday. The doc walks in, sees my MU shirt, and says, "Marquette, huh? You're having a really nice season with Shaka." We chitchat for a minute and he then says, "I'm a Syracuse guy. I wish like hell we never left the Big East. We had some great games with you. I miss the Big East."

If that's not proof that the ACC has been bad for 'Cuse, I don't know what is!

For as bad as Pitt basketball has been in recent years, I think most fans would ultimately say that they don't regret the ACC move because it has been really good for their football program (other sports like volleyball and soccer have made huge jumps, too, but those obviously aren't on most folks' radars).  The realization is that Pitt's bball issues are with coaching and culture, not conference affiliation. 

Syracuse is definitely in a different boat.  Their football team has been bad for years, and since Boeheim is still there, it's hard not to fault the conference change for their recent bball woes. 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

This is very enlightening. The loss of traditional rivalries was too often treated casually in the pursuit of perceived improved status in another conference.  With 20-20 hindsight, it's amazing that (apparently) more studies like this were not conducted prior to the decision(s) to change conferences. College sports are a multi -million-dollar business, and this analysis makes it clear that due diligence studies/analysis were not always properly conducted. Business 101.

But improvement is a relative question right?  They use Nebraska as an example.  The question isn't whether or not they improved when compared to before, but are they better off than they would have been had they stayed.

So let's say that Nebraska stayed in the B12, but all the other conference changes occurred.  It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me that Nebraska would not be better off in the B10 versus the new B12 with Cincy and UCF.

Or put another way, even knowing this study exists, would Kansas take a B10 invite?  Of course they would.

[WhiteTrash]

But improvement is a relative question right?  They use Nebraska as an example.  The question isn't whether or not they improved when compared to before, but are they better off than they would have been had they stayed.

So let's say that Nebraska stayed in the B12, but all the other conference changes occurred.  It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me that Nebraska would not be better off in the B10 versus the new B12 with Cincy and UCF.

Or put another way, even knowing this study exists, would Kansas take a B10 invite?  Of course they would.

The Nebraska point is correct but I don't think that was the point of or the conclusion of the study. Conference realignment as a whole has been neutral or bad for most schools and college sports as a whole. I've talked to a few Nebraska fans in the past ten years or so who wish they never left the Big XII. I'm sure with UT and OU leaving the Big XII they are happy to be in the Big 10 now, but a lot of Nebraska fans would rather have things the way they were 15 years ago.

Also, I'm not sure the new Big XII is missing Nebraska too much, since the new lineup would have had 5 teams in the top 20 this year and one in the Playoff.  Cincy is better in football and basketball than Nebraska. 

[Scoop Snoop]

The Nebraska point is correct but I don't think that was the point of or the conclusion of the study. Conference realignment as a whole has been neutral or bad for most schools and college sports as a whole. I've talked to a few Nebraska fans in the past ten years or so who wish they never left the Big XII. I'm sure with UT and OU leaving the Big XII they are happy to be in the Big 10 now, but a lot of Nebraska fans would rather have things the way they were 15 years ago.

Also, I'm not sure the new Big XII is missing Nebraska too much, since the new lineup would have had 5 teams in the top 20 this year and one in the Playoff.  Cincy is better in football and basketball than Nebraska.

Yep. Thanks for saving me the time it would have taken to reply to Fluffy.

[Viper]

Had to go to a periodontist yesterday. The doc walks in, sees my MU shirt, and says, "Marquette, huh? You're having a really nice season with Shaka." We chitchat for a minute and he then says, "I'm a Syracuse guy. I wish like hell we never left the Big East. We had some great games with you. I miss the Big East."

If that's not proof that the ACC has been bad for 'Cuse, I don't know what is!

side note...in Tucson on biz, i was at the UCLA-‘Zona game last night. A UCLA fan saw my MU hat and said he would not want a rematch with MU right now. Fear us, conference of champions, fear us!

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

The Nebraska point is correct but I don't think that was the point of or the conclusion of the study. Conference realignment as a whole has been neutral or bad for most schools and college sports as a whole. I've talked to a few Nebraska fans in the past ten years or so who wish they never left the Big XII. I'm sure with UT and OU leaving the Big XII they are happy to be in the Big 10 now, but a lot of Nebraska fans would rather have things the way they were 15 years ago.

Also, I'm not sure the new Big XII is missing Nebraska too much, since the new lineup would have had 5 teams in the top 20 this year and one in the Playoff.  Cincy is better in football and basketball than Nebraska. 

Oh I agree.  Most fans would want things back the way they were even longer ago than that.  I don't think fan interest has been the heart of many of these moves at all.  Even Penn State fans who are old enough miss their days of independence when they played a primarily eastern schedule. 

[tower912]

Had to go to a periodontist yesterday. The doc walks in, sees my MU shirt, and says, "Marquette, huh? You're having a really nice season with Shaka." We chitchat for a minute and he then says, "I'm a Syracuse guy. I wish like hell we never left the Big East. We had some great games with you. I miss the Big East."

If that's not proof that the ACC has been bad for 'Cuse, I don't know what is!

You know better than to believe what a dentist says.

[MDMU04]

I think the premise on that article linked here is somewhat flawed.  There definitely are instances like Nebraska, Texas, OU, Missouri, Maryland, Rutgers, etc. where a school moves from one conference to another on a supposition that the move will benefit the institution.  In those situations, the premise is probably fine.

But for every move like the ones above, there are probably 5 or 6 cascading moves on the downstream conferences. The end result is many more of these moves are reactive and arguably made to prevent conference affiliation from becoming a financial anchor on an institution.  There's a big difference between moving from one conference to another with the idea that it will be of benefit, versus escaping a deteriorating or unstable situation.

I guess what I'm saying is that you can't really lump every move together and say "SEE ALMOST NO ONE BENEFITS FROM THIS!" because there are many different motivating factors behind moves...and I certainly would not argue that every school that changes conferences is looking to reap some massive financial windfall from it.

Marquette's situation likely improved in the new Big East in relation to where we would be had we stayed in some awful soulless generic geographical and institutional mish-mash Conference USA reincarnate.  We may not be as well off as we would have been had the 16 team Big East found some way to stay together.  But there's really no way of quantifying that hypothetical.

[WhiteTrash]

I think the premise on that article linked here is somewhat flawed.  There definitely are instances like Nebraska, Texas, OU, Missouri, Maryland, Rutgers, etc. where a school moves from one conference to another on a supposition that the move will benefit the institution.  In those situations, the premise is probably fine.

But for every move like the ones above, there are probably 5 or 6 cascading moves on the downstream conferences. The end result is many more of these moves are reactive and arguably made to prevent conference affiliation from becoming a financial anchor on an institution.  There's a big difference between moving from one conference to another with the idea that it will be of benefit, versus escaping a deteriorating or unstable situation.

I guess what I'm saying is that you can't really lump every move together and say "SEE ALMOST NO ONE BENEFITS FROM THIS!" because there are many different motivating factors behind moves...and I certainly would not argue that every school that changes conferences is looking to reap some massive financial windfall from it.

First, apparently the historical financial data proves no benefits from moving conferences. I assume there is no motive to falsify the data so 'it is what it is' regardless of our opinions. 

I would disagree about Nebraska, Texas, OU and Maryland; IMO they are the perfect examples of the fallacy of the benefits of changing conferences. I don't think any of them has or will help their status in the college sports landscape.

Now I think you could make an argument that the change was beneficial to maintain their current status or mitigate loss in stature but I don't think they improved.

I would agree with the study's conclusion that these changes have weakened the overall college sports product is valid due to the loss of local and regional rivalries.  I think Maryland fans would rather see NC State than Nebraska games and CU would rather see Nebraska than Arizona, etc.

[lawdog77]

You know better than to believe what a dentist says.

[MDMU04]

First, apparently the historical financial data proves no benefits from moving conferences. I assume there is no motive to falsify the data so 'it is what it is' regardless of our opinions. 

The article does not prove that there are no benefits from moving conferences.  It specifically points to Missouri and Rutgers as being the two exceptions to the other 45 cases they looked at.  So the beneficial cases are rather rare, but they do exist.

There's a logical fallacy at work behind the core premise for the schools that have realignment decisions foist upon them. You can't compare two outcomes as being equal when the initial condition no longer exists.  You can't say "team A is worse off now in the A10 than they would have been had they just stayed in the Valley" because the Valley that they were initially in no longer exists in a comparable form.  A couple programs left and were replaced by lower tier competiton, devaluing the conference.

In this instance, finding a home in a different conference may be worse than the initial set of data from the "old Valley."  In this study, the data for the outcome may manifest as a negative.  The reality of the situation is that the initial data comes from a set of circumstances that no longer exist, and is invalid for comparison since the choice of staying in the initial condition is impossible.

It's not an apples to apples comparison for a vast majority of the teams that change conferences, though this thesis would seem to treat it as such.

I would disagree about Nebraska, Texas, OU and Maryland; IMO they are the perfect examples of the fallacy of the benefits of changing conferences. I don't think any of them has or will help their status in the college sports landscape.

We agree here...I stated the premise of the article applies in these cases because of the motivation for those schools making the moves.  They were specifically looking to benefit their institutions via changing conferences.

Now I think you could make an argument that the change was beneficial to maintain their current status or mitigate loss in stature but I don't think they improved.

That's my entire point.  A vast majority of realignment...probably 4 or 5 times as many of the original stated case happens because schools are forced to realign to maintain status or mitigate risk of loss.  They're not doing it because they're expecting some sort of financial windfall. They're doing it because their conference got pilfered, it sucks now, and they need to jump to the next best thing that may or may not be better than what they had...but it's better than where they'll wind up. 

That's where the premise is wrong, the moves need to be judged through the proper context of motivation for making the moves and with logical consistency.

[DoctorV]

You know better than to believe what a dentist says.

He should have knows better than seeing a Periodontist that went to Syracuse!

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

The Horizon League has banished UIC from participating in all winter and spring tournaments.  And then blocked all national media on its social media accounts.

https://twitter.com/RobDauster/status/1491435123941986312?s=20&t=MbEIEpu_bkm58Bzyrj8mKQ

Talk about petty.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

The Horizon League has banished UIC from participating in all winter and spring tournaments.  And then blocked all national media on its social media accounts.

https://twitter.com/RobDauster/status/1491435123941986312?s=20&t=MbEIEpu_bkm58Bzyrj8mKQ

Talk about petty.

I think I read that America East was doing similar to Stony Brook for announcing their departure.

[Oldgym]

I think I read that America East was doing similar to Stony Brook for announcing their departure.

You did, at least as far as basketball post-season is concerned.  IIRC, Stony Brook would need an at-large bid, because AE will not give them the AQ.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The Horizon League has banished UIC from participating in all winter and spring tournaments.  And then blocked all national media on its social media accounts.

https://twitter.com/RobDauster/status/1491435123941986312?s=20&t=MbEIEpu_bkm58Bzyrj8mKQ

Talk about petty.

That's really crappy. They're punishing the current athletes, who had nothing to do with the decision to leave, more than they are punishing the schools who are leaving.

[brewcity77]

The most ridiculous part about it is their pettiness could cost them money. When a team leaves your league, the NCAA credits they earn stay there. So if Vermont loses in the America East Tournament, who would they rather have representing them as a 16-seed, a Stony Brook team with a chance to win a game, or a lesser team that will likely not even make it to the Thursday/Friday games. Banning a team doesn't only harm the players on the banned team, but could harm the ones doing the banning as well.

Honestly, the only ones that don't get harmed are the schools/programs that leave.