Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini
I think the new conference realignment has worked well for everyone except Mizzou & TCU.
Well, I would argue TCU and WVU made a decidedly "step up" in conferences, whereas everyone who left the B12 made a step sideways except Nebraska, and only because of the academic bonuses.
That doesn't mean this conference isn't better than that conference in any given year, but the B12, SEC, B1G and PAC are going to be at the Big Boy table every year. If you go undefeated in one of those conferences, chances are you are going to the MNC, and that won't change much with the new playoffs.
The ACC and BEAST are in that area where the rest of the conference is so bad, it hurts them in the human evaluations that one loss is probably enough to put them out of consideration, and even if they go undefeated, they still might get squeezed.
So, if I were to rank whether conference realignment was more better/more worse fo the school it would be:
1. TCU. They lose the guaranteed wins, but they are smack in the middle of their conference geographical footprint and in one of the biggest cities to boot. In the long run, a good move.
2. Utah. Much like TCU without as much of the metro/geo points, though.
3. WVU. Obviously, they need to improve for the week in/week out competition, but the move up guarantees them a chance at the big party. Geographic isolation a downside, but the culture fits.
4. Nebraska. A step sideways competition and opportunity, but a big opportunity in academic money.
5. A&M. Again, like NU, a step sideways, but the culture fits and they do escape UT shadow a bit. Division fits for them as well.
6. Colorado. Outlier state, but the PAC financial deals and location of most of its alumni make this a decent move for them.
7. Missouri. I'm not hatin' here, but outside of the financials, there isn't much upside in this move. With "stability" no longer the real issue, MU is an outlier state, in the wrong division, with the wrong culture, with dwindling recruiting advantages. The least advantages of any school
That said, looking from the conference perspective:
1. B12. Conference facing extinction and needed two more teams to keep its contract intended for 12. No CCG could be seen as a negative, but internally, that view not necessarily shared. Getting pay on par with the other more established conferences.
2. PAC. Got the big financial deal they wanted, the networks they wanted, and the CCG they wanted. Failed to make the bigger 16 team play and is still somewhat isolated by time zone bias.
3. SEC. The best teams might be there, but as a conference, expansion hasn't yet paid the dividens. This could change if they get the network they want and possibly expand some more. 14 teams creates schedules that means certain teams won't see each other for years at a time. Getting acess to Texas is a plus and Missouri could add if/once the network gets going. But, the buzz about SEC expansion wasn't nearly as impactful as it was in B12 or PAC.
4. B1G. Nebraska is a football "name", but losing their AAU status was bit of the "egg on face". Since the B1G pie was already set, revenues did not really increase, though this could change once renegotiation and possible expansion comes around.