I compiled a list of teams that moved conferences and how they did in the new conference vs old conference.
A couple things:
- I stopped counting after 1991, this only affected Maryland as most teams were from Big East (1991), Big 12 (1996), or MWC (1999)
- Rutgers and UofL had one year of American which I counted with the Big East
- If you see a .5 win, or loss, then that was a tie, that just made the percentages correct
Overall, no do not move conferences; Pitt and A&M are the only ones with real increase, but then only 6.5-7 point increase in win percentage. Missouri increased but that's 4 game improvement over 13 years which means they are winning 1 more game every 3 or so years vs when they were in the Big 12. That could have been luck of schedule or a number of other things (like not playing OU and Nebraska every year)
Miami and Nebraska were hit the hardest of the power teams at 21 point drop in winning percentage. TCU was the largest moving from mid majors to a Power Conference.
It is interesting that both teams that went to the SEC and did better than when in the Big 12. Texas is currently sitting at 18 point increase, but well that's only one season. However, A&M went from 7 wins a season to 8, now there are more games to get that extra win, though some how A&M played 14 games in 1998 so who really knows.
| Team | Old Conference | Wins | Losses | Percentage | New Conference | Wins | Losses | Percentage | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BC | Big East | 95 | 72 | 56.9% | ACC | 133 | 120 | 52.6% | -4.3% |
| Cuse | Big East | 142.5 | 121.5 | 54.0% | ACC | 66 | 82 | 44.6% | -9.4% |
| Miami | Big East | 128 | 29 | 81.5% | ACC | 158 | 106 | 59.8% | -21.7% |
| UofL | Big East | 73 | 40 | 64.6% | ACC | 81 | 60 | 57.4% | -7.2% |
| Pitt | Big East | 128 | 135 | 48.7% | ACC | 85 | 69 | 55.2% | 6.5% |
| VT | Big East | 108.5 | 48.5 | 69.1% | ACC | 173 | 101 | 63.1% | -6.0% |
| A&M | Big 12 | 93 | 68 | 57.8% | SEC | 106 | 58 | 64.6% | 6.9% |
| Missouri | Big 12 | 112 | 84 | 57.1% | SEC | 96 | 68 | 58.5% | 1.4% |
| Maryland | ACC | 125 | 147 | 46.0% | Big Ten | 57 | 73 | 43.8% | -2.1% |
| Nebraska | Big 12 | 139 | 55 | 71.6% | Big Ten | 87 | 85 | 50.6% | -21.1% |
| Rutgers | Big East | 120.5 | 150.5 | 44.5% | Big Ten | 47 | 86 | 35.3% | -9.1% |
| Colorado | Big 12 | 102 | 95 | 51.8% | Pac-12 | 52 | 102 | 33.8% | -18.0% |
| TCU | MWC | 77 | 13 | 85.6% | Big 12 | 101 | 64 | 61.2% | -24.3% |
| Utah | MWC | 105 | 42 | 71.4% | Pac-12 | 109 | 66 | 62.3% | -9.1% |
| WVU | Big East | 167 | 89 | 65.2% | Big 12 | 88 | 74 | 54.3% | -10.9% |
Comments
Arizona St with maybe the biggest swing of recent teams, right?
Did you include the teams that left the Pac 12?
I didn't include any year 1 teams due to lack of enough data, also cincy, BYU, and UCF wee exclude just for number of years in new conference (and cincy would be a mess with how many times they've changed)
Do you really TCU was better off in the MWC than the B12? Or that Utah was better off in the MWC than the P12?
Analyzing this purely through the lens of winning percentage leaves out a lot of context. Some teams wouldn't have a conference to go home to. Would it be nice for WVU to be in the old Big East with Pitt,, UL, Cincy, VT, etc? Sure. But that's not a thing any more. Would Nebraska prefer to be in a conference with OU, Colorado, Etc? Yea, but Texas ruined that first.
Moving up to power conferences is always better even with a not great winning percentage because of the money. Both Utah and TCU have had some success at the higher conferences.
For most of the others who knows, Nebraska has fallen off like no other, Colorado might have a chance at resurgamce now that they play in the Big 12 again. Miami isn't coming back, Rutgers, eh who cares, Maryland best days are behind them. I really don't see these teams getting back to where they were, but maybe the money was worth it. Maybe the stability of a conference for another decade is good. Just looking at all these teams most of them in bad spots and not going in the direction needed to be what they one were. For VT it wasn't the conference as much as Beamer retiring. For Muami, their recruiting advantage is gone due to hudl and other means.
But it's sports winning is better than losing, and conference re alignments have brought a little of losing.
I guess I'm saying that, for some of those programs, the future wasn't guaranteed, and the losses might've been worse if they didn't move.
I'm also saying that circumstances are different in every situation:
I agree that I think it's a bit of a different story for each team, but I've got to nit-pick this one comment:
We won 3 conference championships in the Big East (1995, 1996 and 1999) and finished the season ranked in the AP top 10 in 1995 (#10), 1999 (#2) and 2000 (#6). The first six years in the ACC, from 2004-2010, Virginia Tech won 4 conference titles and finished in the top 10 4 times as well.
VT's move to the ACC was a slam-dunk success, but it was basically identical to what we were doing the previous decade in the Big East.
This is backed up by the data, in the 13 seasons in the BE we averaged 8.4 W - 3.6 L and in the first 13 in the ACC we averaged 9.4 W - 4 L. With moving to 12 game schedule our extra win became the FCS we played and then add in the championship game for the L. We were at .700 in the BE and .701 in the ACC.
If we only do last 10/first 10 then BE: 9.2-3.1 while ACC is 9.9- 3.5 then the BE was 0.747 and ACC was 0.738.
Take the check, take the losses.
Just curious if watering down the OOC schedule to fit into the SEC gave those teams a boost?
I will subscribe to any theory that makes the SEC look worse
So sure!