Non-Big East Conference Realignment Thread v. 2017

[GoldenWarrior11]

The biggest mistake the AAC made, in adding C-USA members in Houston, SMU, East Carolina, Memphis, UCF, and Tulane, was creating a brand and image that did not separate itself from Conference USA. They used a similar color scheme, logo, and branding in creating a new identity, and casual fans immediately thought of C-USA (including former C-USA teams in Cincinnati and USF). They should have taken the Metro Conference name and created a new branding. This is a big reason why they are not seriously considered a power conference in football.

What was the alternative?

Resurrect the Metro Conference. An overwhelming majority of current AAC schools are in big metropolitan cities (Dallas, Houston, New Orleans, Tulsa, Cincinnati, Orlando, Tampa, Memphis, Philadelphia). It would have separated themselves from the C-USA branding and eliminated any connection/stigma to that conference. They would have done a much better job arguing they are a power conference with a branding and name that didn't sound like Conference USA 2.0.

[Bill Marsh]

The biggest mistake the AAC made, in adding C-USA members in Houston, SMU, East Carolina, Memphis, UCF, and Tulane, was creating a brand and image that did not separate itself from Conference USA. They used a similar color scheme, logo, and branding in creating a new identity, and casual fans immediately thought of C-USA (including former C-USA teams in Cincinnati and USF). They should have taken the Metro Conference name and created a new branding. This is a big reason why they are not seriously considered a power conference in football.

What was the alternative?

Resurrect the Metro Conference. An overwhelming majority of current AAC schools are in big metropolitan cities (Dallas, Houston, New Orleans, Tulsa, Cincinnati, Orlando, Tampa, Memphis, Philadelphia). It would have separated themselves from the C-USA branding and eliminated any connection/stigma to that conference. They would have done a much better job arguing they are a power conference with a branding and name that didn't sound like Conference USA 2.0.

With the exception of East Carolina, isn't that what they did?

[GoldenWarrior11]

With the exception of East Carolina, isn't that what they did?

I meant it terms of branding, logos, colors, etc. They essentially created a Conference-USA ripoff brand (American), while pulling the exact same teams. When AAC schools start complaining about why they are not considered a power conference and are not treated with national respect, it can be pointed to this reason. When you want a new identity - one that disassociates yourself from your prior conference - you don't use the same branding. Metro Conference, Big Metro, American Metro, Eastern Atlantic, Atlantic Gulf, etc., all would have created identities and branding separate from what the American is - a carbon copy of what was Conference USA.

[BEwannabe]

^^^good branding analysis^^^

That's both funny and sad, the AAC gives me the creeps.

[shizzle787]

Hey, so this is my first time posting, and I must admit I am a UConn fan lurking around here.
I was wondering what you guys thought about my potential idea (it is 20 years out).
Personally, I love college football and college basketball. However, we all know that football as a sport may be in trouble due to the concussion and CTE problem.
If schools start dropping the sport en masse in the next two decades, would the conference want to reserruct the OBE+5 relative newbies if that happened:
UConn, Syracuse, Pitt, and BC joining the current 10.
Would you guys get over dumping the round robin format?

[kayako]

If schools start dropping the sport en masse in the next two decades, would the conference want to reserruct the OBE+5 relative newbies if that happened:
UConn, Syracuse, Pitt, and BC joining the current 10.
Would you guys get over dumping the round robin format?

I think the worst case for college FB is a somewhat diminished standing in the sports world. Less lucrative, but it won't collapse to the point where schools abandon B1G and ACC, which are fine basketball conferences anyway.

But to answer your question, I don't value the double round robin as much as others around here, so I'd take UConn back without too much hesitation. BC and Pitt can remain irrelevant in their current conferences. I'd have to think long and hard about Syracuse, but I can probably be talked into it. Given your time frame of 20 years, though, these rivalries will have lost a lot of luster. I know we're kind of lacking in national profile right now with Georgetown sucking, but Creighton, Xavier, and Butler are trending up nicely in terms of recruiting, and they'll be firmly established as national players by then, IMO. I think if UConn wants to come back, it's sooner the better for both parties.

[EMT]

If schools start dropping the sport en masse in the next two decades, would the conference want to reserruct the OBE+5 relative newbies if that happened:
UConn, Syracuse, Pitt, and BC joining the current 10.
Would you guys get over dumping the round robin format?

I think the worst case for college FB is a somewhat diminished standing in the sports world. Less lucrative, but it won't collapse to the point where schools abandon B1G and ACC, which are fine basketball conferences anyway.

But to answer your question, I don't value the double round robin as much as others around here, so I'd take UConn back without too much hesitation. BC and Pitt can remain irrelevant in their current conferences. I'd have to think long and hard about Syracuse, but I can probably be talked into it. Given your time frame of 20 years, though, these rivalries will have lost a lot of luster. I know we're kind of lacking in national profile right now with Georgetown sucking, but Creighton, Xavier, and Butler are trending up nicely in terms of recruiting, and they'll be firmly established as national players by then, IMO. I think if UConn wants to come back, it's sooner the better for both parties.

Are any of these school relevant in 20 years?

BC hasn't been relevant since Al Skinner was forced out.
UConn has to see if they can succeed in the AAC in a post Calhoun era.
Syracuse has to survive the post Boeheim era and is not a good fit for the ACC.
Pitt was traditionally successful recruiting tri-state area kids and now plays no tri-state schools.

[kayako]

Are any of these school relevant in 20 years?

BC hasn't been relevant since Al Skinner was forced out.
UConn has to see if they can succeed in the AAC in a post Calhoun era.
Syracuse has to survive the post Boeheim era and is not a good fit for the ACC.
Pitt was traditionally successful recruiting tri-state area kids and now plays no tri-state schools.

It's hard to predict that far ahead for any program. But I do know that money can buy good coaching staff and facilities.

[Bill Marsh]

If schools start dropping the sport en masse in the next two decades, would the conference want to reserruct the OBE+5 relative newbies if that happened:
UConn, Syracuse, Pitt, and BC joining the current 10.
Would you guys get over dumping the round robin format?

I think the worst case for college FB is a somewhat diminished standing in the sports world. Less lucrative, but it won't collapse to the point where schools abandon B1G and ACC, which are fine basketball conferences anyway.

But to answer your question, I don't value the double round robin as much as others around here, so I'd take UConn back without too much hesitation. BC and Pitt can remain irrelevant in their current conferences. I'd have to think long and hard about Syracuse, but I can probably be talked into it. Given your time frame of 20 years, though, these rivalries will have lost a lot of luster. I know we're kind of lacking in national profile right now with Georgetown sucking, but Creighton, Xavier, and Butler are trending up nicely in terms of recruiting, and they'll be firmly established as national players by then, IMO. I think if UConn wants to come back, it's sooner the better for both parties.

Are any of these school relevant in 20 years?

UConn has to see if they can succeed in the AAC in a post Calhoun era.

It's been 5 years since Calhoun retired. How long does it take to see if they can be successful without him? One down year with a bunch of injuries means we're now questioning the entire program? Seriously?

[Westbrook#36]

Just curious, so finishing 6th three years running in the AAC isn't considered "down years"? I would think given Uconn's previous standards that it would be.