Does Conference Realignment Work Out for Teams?

[Mike Jackson]

With all this talk about coaching moves at the end of the season, it made me draw a parallel between that and conference realignment decisions.   My question is how often does a "lateral" conference move for money works out for the team's on the field success?   Looking at teams like Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas A&M to the SEC.  Then looking at Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland to the Big 10.  You can could call our move to CUSA basically a lateral move.  Cause at the end of the day it only looks like a better financial situation than the Sun Belt.  Arkansas has yet to win the SEC and they have been in that league over 20 years and it doesn't look like they will even win their division in the next 4 as long as Saban is around.  Nebraska doesn't look like they will be winning the Big 10 anytime soon either.   And Nebraska has the advantage of most of the traditional power houses of that conference in the opposite division.  

With that in mind what would you want for North Texas?  Would you want make a minor conference upgrade to the AAC or Mountain West and not win a conference title for 20 years (with respectable records and a couple of bowl appearances) or would you rather stay in CUSA and win about 3 or 4 during that period of time?

[shaft]

No, our move to CUSA from the Sun Belt was a step up.

More exposure, ,more revenue, more bowl access.

[Hunter Green]

11 hours ago, shaft said:

No, our move to CUSA from the Sun Belt was a step up.

More exposure, ,more revenue, more bowl access.

Plus the potential for in state rivals and closer/better travel destinations.

Edited November 26, 2016 by Hunter Green

[Mike Jackson]

It was a minor step up better travel destinations don't mean much if your program is mediocre and people don't want travel to games.  More bowls doesn't mean better in my opinion.  If you aren't playing a P5 opponent in the bowl game it really doesn't do much for your program.  Often schools lose money on the trip to the bowl games especially if their fan base doesn't make the trip.

  

[shaft]

3 hours ago, Mike Jackson said:

 More bowls doesn't mean better in my opinion.  

  

Your opinion is wrong.

[emmitt01]

We moved up from the Sun Belt.  Even in its "watered down" form I wouldn't leave CUSA for the Belt.  

And aTm made the right call too.  A move to the SEC from the Big XII is not lateral, it's up

[Mike Jackson]

3 hours ago, emmitt01 said:

We moved up from the Sun Belt.  Even in its "watered down" form I wouldn't leave CUSA for the Belt.  

And aTm made the right call too.  A move to the SEC from the Big XII is not lateral, it's up

I am not arguing for a return to the Sun Belt.  SEC a move is a move up financially but if you never win your division in the SEC what is the point?  Texas A&M games are still just accessible on TV as they were when the Big 12 was actually 12 teams.  And the Big 12 with Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado and Texas A&M was a very good and compelling conference.

 

19 hours ago, shaft said:

No, our move to CUSA from the Sun Belt was a step up.

More exposure, ,more revenue, more bowl access.

The game today is not on TV and it wasn't the first one.  It was a minor step up when you consider everything.  It you win big and schedule non-conference games better the revenue difference could be offset.  Not saying the move to CUSA was bad and you guys never answered my question.  If the choice is between a slightly better conference with no conference championships for 20 years or staying but it the weaker conference and winning 3 to 4 which would you pick?

[emmitt01]

6 minutes ago, Mike Jackson said:

I am not arguing for a return to the Sun Belt.  SEC a move is a move up financially but if you never win your division in the SEC what is the point?  Texas A&M games are still just accessible on TV as they were when the Big 12 was actually 12 teams.  And the Big 12 with Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado and Texas A&M was a very good and compelling conference.

 

The game today is not on TV and it wasn't the first one.  It was a minor step up when you consider everything.  It you win big and schedule non-conference games better the revenue difference could be offset.  Not saying the move to CUSA was bad and you guys never answered my question.  If the choice is between a slightly better conference with no conference championships for 20 years or staying but it the weaker conference and winning 3 to 4 which would you pick?

We've been in the Belt and won conference titles.  Other than the chance to take a trip to New Orleans most fans didn't get any more excited.  So, yeah, I'll take the better conference.  And if you can't see that playing in the SEC has upped aTm's cache with recruits and the pollsters I don't know what to tell you.  

[Mike Jackson]

1 minute ago, emmitt01 said:

We've been in the Belt and won conference titles.  Other than the chance to take a trip to New Orleans most fans didn't get any more excited.  So, yeah, I'll take the better conference.  And if you can't see that playing in the SEC has upped aTm's cache with recruits and the pollsters I don't know what to tell you.  

Upped cache but you never win your division?  And if you don't win your division then it doesn't matter what pollsters think of you. You aren't going to the playoffs unless the other conference champion have more losses than you do.  If the conferences are close and I am guaranteed a P5 team in the bowl tie in as champion I would take the slightly weaker conference.  But if you are talking about the gap between the Sun Belt and MWC of course you would go to the MWC.