Started By
Message
Biggest Conference Realignment Regrets
Posted on 9/25/19 at 3:37 pm
Posted on 9/25/19 at 3:37 pm
Since its been a few years since Conference Realignment cooled back down, we now have the benefit of hindsight to evaluate some of the decisions. Here are the things I wish we could go back and change:
1. Rutgers to the Big 10
Hands down, this has to be the worst move of any league during the Expansion Frenzy.
Rutgers is 7-37 in Big Ten football play since joining the league.
Rutgers is 16-76 in Big Ten men's basketball play sine joining the league.
What an absolute disaster. The Big Ten would have been better suited without making the recent jump of adding Nebraska and Rutgers. Even Nebraska hasn't been very impressive since jumping to the conference. If they felt they had to get Nebraska, they would have been better off in hindsight adding a program like West Virginia or even Cincinnati..... or even Missouri.
2. The Dissolution of the Big 8
The Big 8 was a great league. It was competitive, and it produced a lot of great rivalries like Nebraska vs. Oklahoma and Nebraska vs. Colorado. Sadly those rivalries are dead now due to conference expansion.
The Big 8 never should have hitched its wagon to Texas by moving to the Big 12. Had they felt the need years later to expand, this would have been a great place for Utah and/or BYU... possibly Boise State as well. The Big 8 had no reason to go down into Texas for expansion. The Big 12 became Texas-centric and that ended up hurting the great conference that was a natural fit for the Great Plains states.
3. SEC Expanding Past 10
No offense to the four most recent members, but the SEC was a much tighter knit community prior to expanding miles in every direction. Quite frankly, Arkansas, South Carolina, Missouri, and Texas A&M have each had limited success in the SEC, but they've failed to perform well and make a big splash for the league at the national level.
The Big 6 dominated the league historically, and they've still dominated the league since 1992 (though Tennessee is falling fast).
Had the SEC decided to expand, it seems Clemson would have been a much better fit rather than South Carolina. Clemson obviously has had way more success on the gridiron in recent years. Clemson also had a much closer relationship to the SEC at the time of the 1992 expansion. Up through 1991, Clemson had played 158 games against the SEC, while South Carolina had played 98.
Part of the lure of Arkansas was their basketball program. But since about 2000, they've been mediocre at best.
Texas A&M fits fairly well and they are obviously willing to spend some $$$, but will they ever be more than Big Money Mediocre?
And let's not even discuss Mizzou.
1. Rutgers to the Big 10
Hands down, this has to be the worst move of any league during the Expansion Frenzy.
Rutgers is 7-37 in Big Ten football play since joining the league.
Rutgers is 16-76 in Big Ten men's basketball play sine joining the league.
What an absolute disaster. The Big Ten would have been better suited without making the recent jump of adding Nebraska and Rutgers. Even Nebraska hasn't been very impressive since jumping to the conference. If they felt they had to get Nebraska, they would have been better off in hindsight adding a program like West Virginia or even Cincinnati..... or even Missouri.
2. The Dissolution of the Big 8
The Big 8 was a great league. It was competitive, and it produced a lot of great rivalries like Nebraska vs. Oklahoma and Nebraska vs. Colorado. Sadly those rivalries are dead now due to conference expansion.
The Big 8 never should have hitched its wagon to Texas by moving to the Big 12. Had they felt the need years later to expand, this would have been a great place for Utah and/or BYU... possibly Boise State as well. The Big 8 had no reason to go down into Texas for expansion. The Big 12 became Texas-centric and that ended up hurting the great conference that was a natural fit for the Great Plains states.
3. SEC Expanding Past 10
No offense to the four most recent members, but the SEC was a much tighter knit community prior to expanding miles in every direction. Quite frankly, Arkansas, South Carolina, Missouri, and Texas A&M have each had limited success in the SEC, but they've failed to perform well and make a big splash for the league at the national level.
The Big 6 dominated the league historically, and they've still dominated the league since 1992 (though Tennessee is falling fast).
Had the SEC decided to expand, it seems Clemson would have been a much better fit rather than South Carolina. Clemson obviously has had way more success on the gridiron in recent years. Clemson also had a much closer relationship to the SEC at the time of the 1992 expansion. Up through 1991, Clemson had played 158 games against the SEC, while South Carolina had played 98.
Part of the lure of Arkansas was their basketball program. But since about 2000, they've been mediocre at best.
Texas A&M fits fairly well and they are obviously willing to spend some $$$, but will they ever be more than Big Money Mediocre?
And let's not even discuss Mizzou.
43
Posted on 9/25/19 at 3:40 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
Texas A&M fits fairly well and they are obviously willing to spend some $$$, but will they ever be more than Big Money Mediocre
I keep telling these aggys but the teacher cannot teach until the student is ready to learn.
Btw. CheeseGrits was actually there. Let’s give him a round of applause for his accomplishments.
This post was edited on 9/25/19 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 9/25/19 at 3:40 pm to BHMKyle
I rather just be Independent so we can schedule awesome random arse games and I'd have more a reason to travel more. I don't feel strongly connected to the SEC as a South Carolina fan but I sure as hell wouldn't want us to ever go back to the ACC. For reference, I am 31 years old so basically my entire life we have been SEC.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 3:41 pm to BHMKyle
Texas A&M is bad enough, but Mizzou is the worst.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 3:42 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
SEC Expanding Past 10
Agree, but hell they’re here now so.........sort a like that a-hole your sister married. You’re gonna see the son of a bitch every Christmas, so “be nice”, your wife will say.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 3:42 pm to SCgamecock2988
Fastest downvote in the West goes to... ? Expect more, but whatever. I like that we're in the SEC I just don't think we'll ever do shite but maybe win some more baseball and women's bball nattys.
Oh well.
Oh well.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 3:43 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
Had the SEC decided to expand, it seems Clemson would have been a much better fit rather than South Carolina. Clemson obviously has had way more success on the gridiron in recent years. Clemson also had a much closer relationship to the SEC at the time of the 1992 expansion. Up through 1991, Clemson had played 158 games against the SEC, while South Carolina had played 98.
SC was an independent, Clemson was not. That's why the SEC took them.
Had Clemson not whimped out when SC left the conference in 1971 (they were supposed to go to), they would have had a shot at the SEC.
On the flip side, Clemson is less than 2 hours from Athens. It didn't really expand the SEC footprint.
This post was edited on 9/25/19 at 3:45 pm
Posted on 9/25/19 at 3:44 pm to BHMKyle
1. Big East ignore's Joe Pa's request because Penn State had a terrible basketball program.
If the Big East powers at the time (Miami, Pitt, WVU, Syracuse, and VT) told the small catholic basketball schools to shove it and brought Penn State into the fold it would have changed everything. It would have also given them leverage to tell ND to fully join or they can take their olympic sports elsewhere.
Penn State, ND, Syracuse, Pitt, WVU, VT, Miami, Rutgers, Temple, and BC would have been a solid conference dominating Northeast and mid-atlantic viewership.
If the Big East powers at the time (Miami, Pitt, WVU, Syracuse, and VT) told the small catholic basketball schools to shove it and brought Penn State into the fold it would have changed everything. It would have also given them leverage to tell ND to fully join or they can take their olympic sports elsewhere.
Penn State, ND, Syracuse, Pitt, WVU, VT, Miami, Rutgers, Temple, and BC would have been a solid conference dominating Northeast and mid-atlantic viewership.
This post was edited on 9/25/19 at 3:46 pm
Posted on 9/25/19 at 3:46 pm to BHMKyle
West Virginia being in the Big 12, which has 10 teams, is about as dumb as it gets. I miss the Big East for hoops.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 3:47 pm to MetryMauler
I do actually wish we could just drop Mizzou and A&M and go back to 12 teams. I miss CFB from when I was growing up. Despite it's flaws I enjoyed the BCS, but I'd like to see how a playoff shakes out with old conference ties.
This post was edited on 9/25/19 at 3:48 pm
Posted on 9/25/19 at 3:47 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
3. SEC Expanding Past 10
We went to 12 so we could have an SECCG.
That's led to some classic games.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 3:51 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
3. SEC Expanding Past 10
Arkansas and USCe have been great fits, and have brought a lot to this league. The time when the league had twelve teams was some of the best and most exciting years in league history. The two new additions, not so much. They do not fit culturally or geographically. A&M has contributed somewhat on the athletic front, but Missouri has been a disaster.
This post was edited on 9/25/19 at 3:53 pm
Posted on 9/25/19 at 3:51 pm to skrayper
and to 14 so you could make double for your tv contracts
Posted on 9/25/19 at 3:54 pm to MetryMauler
quote:
West Virginia being in the Big 12, which has 10 teams, is about as dumb as it gets. I miss the Big East for hoops.
if WVU werent in the B12 though, TCU would be in the big east. that is even dumber.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 3:58 pm to TigerinKorea
quote:
Arkansas and USCe have been great fits, and have brought a lot to this league.
I have very mixed feelings about USC in the SEC. They've been in the conference for almost the entirety of my adult life, and in some cases it feels a natural fit. In others, it's very forced. The league does not, and I reckon never has, treated its members equally. But then again, none of them do (which is why we're no longer in the ACC).
Regardless, I think USC has brought quite a bit to the conference, and vice-versa. Dunno if it'll ever be "enough," but I guess thems the breaks.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 4:00 pm to BHMKyle
Expansion had to do with TV sets. I remember hearing it talked about for years before it happened. I personally like the SEC additions. I don't know who would have fit in better. It is more than just a football league.
Rutgers and Maryland to the big ten never seemed like that was a match made in heaven. Nebraska, when they left the big 12, does not recruit Texas like they use to. That is a big reason for their downturn, imo. It was said at the time that that would happen.
If you go back far enough, Fla St was a prime choice for the SEC when they wanted to go to 12 teams. Bowden did not want in this league, so that was that. Miami was never a candidate, poor fan support.
Rutgers and Maryland to the big ten never seemed like that was a match made in heaven. Nebraska, when they left the big 12, does not recruit Texas like they use to. That is a big reason for their downturn, imo. It was said at the time that that would happen.
If you go back far enough, Fla St was a prime choice for the SEC when they wanted to go to 12 teams. Bowden did not want in this league, so that was that. Miami was never a candidate, poor fan support.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 4:02 pm to BHMKyle
Why you bagging on Mizzou? Haven't they won the east twice this decade? They have done well considering....the others.
Posted on 9/25/19 at 4:06 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
Quite frankly, Arkansas, South Carolina, Missouri, and Texas A&M have each had limited success in the SEC, but they've failed to perform well and make a big splash for the league at the national level.
1) There's more to the SEC than football, bruh.
quote:
Had the SEC decided to expand, it seems Clemson would have been a much better fit rather than South Carolina. Clemson obviously has had way more success on the gridiron in recent years. Clemson also had a much closer relationship to the SEC at the time of the 1992 expansion
2) Clemson is the smaller school, with the smaller fan/alumni base, with less merch sales in a small market. Even with the disparity on the football field between the two programs, SC still brings in more money and is always ranked higher in those "School Value" lists. This has always been true whether you're talking the entire universities, the athletic departments, or even just the football programs.
Clemson just barely cracked the Top 25 this year. Still 9 spots behind us and 1 spot behind Ole Miss.
The year before, they weren't even in the Top 25 while we were in the top 15.
This post was edited on 9/25/19 at 4:11 pm
Posted on 9/25/19 at 4:24 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
And let's not even discuss Mizzou.
2 East Division titles is something (as many as you since 2013 - and more than Ark, UT, UK, MSST, Ole Miss, SC during the same time)
And the B-ball program is quickly recovering from the train wreck it had become.
I cant argue with not having the national spotlight (at least for the right reasons)... with that being said frick Texas for their greed that ruined the B12
Posted on 9/25/19 at 4:27 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
2. The Dissolution of the Big 8
The Big 8 was a great league. It was competitive, and it produced a lot of great rivalries like Nebraska vs. Oklahoma and Nebraska vs. Colorado. Sadly those rivalries are dead now due to conference expansion.
The Big 8 never should have hitched its wagon to Texas by moving to the Big 12. Had they felt the need years later to expand, this would have been a great place for Utah and/or BYU... possibly Boise State as well. The Big 8 had no reason to go down into Texas for expansion. The Big 12 became Texas-centric and that ended up hurting the great conference that was a natural fit for the Great Plains states.
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News