Oh great a fan of anther team that wants to brag about national titles won 80 years ago.
This is our message board, we've won national titles recently. We certainly don't take a back seat to Minnesota or.Pitt when it comes to athletics.
Just because you guys are in a better league doesn't mean squat when it comes to what happens on the field.
I like discussions about realignment, but please the condescending attitude is BS.
I said nothing of the sort. All I said was that if you want to have a discussion about conference realignment, you should discuss all of the factors and some of them are not sports related.
With the exception of Utah, TCU, and Louisville, conference realignment has had little to do with on the field success. TCU and Utah put themselves in position by winning big games, but they also had location (Texas is big market, Utah is new market) and football history (LT made TCU popular) in there favor. Louisville grabbed the last spot in the ACC based on recent football success, but also provides new markets and a few other things.
Every other team involved in conference realignment was chosen for reasons other than recent athletic success. Many of the teams listed below had poor success on the field prior to switching conferences.
Colorado - location, new markets
Nebraska - football tradition, large national following, new markets, academics (AAU at the time)
Pitt - location, new markets, academics (AAU)
Cuse - location, new markets, adademics (was previously AAU)
TAMU - location, new markets, football tradition
Mizzou - location, new markets, academics
ND - new markets, football tradition
WVU - new markets, football tradition, available to leave that year, lack of academics (academics denied WVU to B1G and ACC)