Why not merge Conference USA and the Sun Belt like this?
https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...r-football

C-USA, Sun Belt merger can’t come fast enough
http://www.sunherald.com/sports/spt-colu...13204.html

My thoughts on the Conference USA/Sunbelt Conference breakdown.
Essentially
Conference USA = Conference USA West + Sunbelt Conference west
Sunbelt Conference = Conference USA East + Sunbelt Conference East

Conference USA (revised)
CUSA West
N TX
Rice
UTEP
UTSA
TX St
AR St

CUSA East
LA Tech
Lousiana
Lousiana-Monroe
USM
UAB
S. AL

Sunbelt Conference (revised)
Sunbelt North
Western KY
Middle TN
Marshall
Old Dominion
Charlotte
Appalachian St.

Sunbelt South
Coastal Carolina
GA St
GA Southern
Troy
FIU
FAU

UT-Arlington (non-football)
AK-Little Rock (non-football)
Can go to the WAC if the Sunbelt wants to focus on football schools

Also rebrand the revised CUSA into a new Southwest Conference. I believe Rice has the rights to the SWC name.

(12-06-2017 02:45 PM)RobtheAggie Wrote:  Conference USA is essentially two conferences now.
East:
UAB
FAU
FIU
Marshall
MTSU
UNC-C
ODU
WKU

La Tech
UNT
Rice
USM
UTEP
UTSA

Seems like if this were ever to break into a more regional conference, there could be a move for NMSU/TSU if UTEP could ever get overruled.

All FBS realignment is on hold until the B12 contract runs out in 2025. People may announce in 2023 (more likely 2024), but 2025.

CUSA may look very different (after B12 adds some G5 schools and AAC back fills) by then.

BTW, I believe CUSA will get it's first NY6 bid next year with FAU

(12-06-2017 11:19 AM)chrisattsu Wrote:  One theory that I have seen is that basically the XII is picked a part by the other conferences. How depends on who you ask and which teams each conference is willing to absorb.

This is the driver...but it's not really up to the conferences...mostly up to the TV execs and how they decide to divvy up the money.

Also what Stu said above. No point in moving around (which incurs entrance and exit fees) when the real movement is still just off the horizon.

WAC just needs to stay alive and hope some homeless folks land in their lap in addition to whatever D2 movement happens between now and then.

(12-06-2017 09:20 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  Why not merge Conference USA and the Sun Belt like this?
https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...r-football

C-USA, Sun Belt merger can’t come fast enough
http://www.sunherald.com/sports/spt-colu...13204.html

My thoughts on the Conference USA/Sunbelt Conference breakdown.
Essentially
Conference USA = Conference USA West + Sunbelt Conference west
Sunbelt Conference = Conference USA East + Sunbelt Conference East

Conference USA (revised)
CUSA West
N TX
Rice
UTEP
UTSA
TX St
AK St

CUSA East
LA Tech
Lousiana
Lousiana-Monroe
USM
UAB
S. AL

Sunbelt Conference (revised)
Sunbelt North
Western KY
Middle TN
Marshall
Old Dominion
Charlotte
Appalachian St.

Sunbelt South
Coastal Carolina
GA St
GA Southern
Troy
FIU
FAU

UT-Arlington (non-football)
AK-Little Rock (non-football)
Can go to the WAC if the Sunbelt wants to focus on football schools

Also rebrand the revised CUSA into a new Southwest Conference. I believe Rice has the rights to the SWC name.

First, when did Alaska State and Alaska-Little Rock join the Sun Belt? "AR" has been the official postal abbreviation for Arkansas for more than 50 years, get it right people (that includes CNN). Second, everyone puts stAte in a division with the Texas schools. This isn't the old Southwest Conference; Jonesboro is in the northeast corner of the state and is closer to Atlanta than to Denton. They recruit Alabama heavily and want to keep that connection. LA Tech is the westernmost of the ARKLA schools, put them in a division with Texas schools. Articles like those linked here have been around for over 2 years, almost all by writers in close proximity to a CUSA school and they all say the same thing. CUSA is in a mess of their own creation and they can find a way to fix it without involving the Sun Belt. The Sun Belt is very happy with how it looks now.

(12-07-2017 01:02 AM)AZcats Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 09:20 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  Why not merge Conference USA and the Sun Belt like this?
https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...r-football

C-USA, Sun Belt merger can’t come fast enough
http://www.sunherald.com/sports/spt-colu...13204.html

My thoughts on the Conference USA/Sunbelt Conference breakdown.
Essentially
Conference USA = Conference USA West + Sunbelt Conference west
Sunbelt Conference = Conference USA East + Sunbelt Conference East

Conference USA (revised)
CUSA West
N TX
Rice
UTEP
UTSA
TX St
AR St (stAte)

CUSA East
LA Tech
Lousiana
Lousiana-Monroe
USM
UAB
S. AL

Sunbelt Conference (revised)
Sunbelt North
Western KY
Middle TN
Marshall
Old Dominion
Charlotte
Appalachian St.

Sunbelt South
Coastal Carolina
GA St
GA Southern
Troy
FIU
FAU

UT-Arlington (non-football)
AR-Little Rock (non-football)
Can go to the WAC if the Sunbelt wants to focus on football schools

Also rebrand the revised CUSA into a new Southwest Conference. I believe Rice has the rights to the SWC name.

First, when did Alaska State and Alaska-Little Rock join the Sun Belt? "AR" has been the official postal abbreviation for Arkansas for more than 50 years, get it right people (that includes CNN). Second, everyone puts stAte in a division with the Texas schools. This isn't the old Southwest Conference; Jonesboro is in the northeast corner of the state and is closer to Atlanta than to Denton. They recruit Alabama heavily and want to keep that connection. LA Tech is the westernmost of the ARKLA schools, put them in a division with Texas schools. Articles like those linked here have been around for over 2 years, almost all by writers in close proximity to a CUSA school and they all say the same thing. CUSA is in a mess of their own creation and they can find a way to fix it without involving the Sun Belt. The Sun Belt is very happy with how it looks now.

my bad...i meant Arkansas instead of Alaska...good catch...

arkansas was in the swc with the TX schools from 1915-1991...the line up was in the spirit of the old swc...so that's why the new swc west division has that particular line up...

as far as the swc east division...i wanted to keep the LA schools together in the same division with the southeast schools...if LA Tech has issue with being in the division with the other LA schools then stAte can switch with LA Tech...

all of this is just speculation anyways until something actually happens...it's conversation bait...reality is that all this CUSA/Sunbelt reorganization probably won't happen because of egos & politics...

(12-07-2017 12:46 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 11:19 AM)chrisattsu Wrote:  One theory that I have seen is that basically the XII is picked a part by the other conferences. How depends on who you ask and which teams each conference is willing to absorb.

This is the driver...but it's not really up to the conferences...mostly up to the TV execs and how they decide to divvy up the money.

Also what Stu said above. No point in moving around (which incurs entrance and exit fees) when the real movement is still just off the horizon.

WAC just needs to stay alive and hope some homeless folks land in their lap in addition to whatever D2 movement happens between now and then.

I can understand why Sac State wouldn't move its non-football sports from the Big Sky to the WAC -- there would be no travel cost savings from doing so -- but wouldn't Sac State move its non-football sports to the Big West if it could? It seems to me that if the Big Sky were to offer Sac State the same football-only membership that UC Davis and Cal Poly have, Sac State (presuming it had a Big West membership invitation in hand) would jump at the opportunity to be in a more geographically friendly conference.

The Big Sky will pull the rug out from Sac State football if they move their other sports. If the Hornets move they will not be playing Big Sky football, and it may jeopardize the football memberships of Cal Poly and UC Davis as well.

(12-07-2017 02:55 AM)joeben69 Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 01:02 AM)AZcats Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 09:20 PM)joeben69 Wrote:  Why not merge Conference USA and the Sun Belt like this?
https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...r-football

C-USA, Sun Belt merger can’t come fast enough
http://www.sunherald.com/sports/spt-colu...13204.html

My thoughts on the Conference USA/Sunbelt Conference breakdown.
Essentially
Conference USA = Conference USA West + Sunbelt Conference west
Sunbelt Conference = Conference USA East + Sunbelt Conference East

Conference USA (revised)
CUSA West
N TX
Rice
UTEP
UTSA
TX St
AR St (stAte)

CUSA East
LA Tech
Lousiana
Lousiana-Monroe
USM
UAB
S. AL

Sunbelt Conference (revised)
Sunbelt North
Western KY
Middle TN
Marshall
Old Dominion
Charlotte
Appalachian St.

Sunbelt South
Coastal Carolina
GA St
GA Southern
Troy
FIU
FAU

UT-Arlington (non-football)
AK-Little Rock (non-football)
Can go to the WAC if the Sunbelt wants to focus on football schools

Also rebrand the revised CUSA into a new Southwest Conference. I believe Rice has the rights to the SWC name.

First, when did Alaska State and Alaska-Little Rock join the Sun Belt? "AR" has been the official postal abbreviation for Arkansas for more than 50 years, get it right people (that includes CNN). Second, everyone puts stAte in a division with the Texas schools. This isn't the old Southwest Conference; Jonesboro is in the northeast corner of the state and is closer to Atlanta than to Denton. They recruit Alabama heavily and want to keep that connection. LA Tech is the westernmost of the ARKLA schools, put them in a division with Texas schools. Articles like those linked here have been around for over 2 years, almost all by writers in close proximity to a CUSA school and they all say the same thing. CUSA is in a mess of their own creation and they can find a way to fix it without involving the Sun Belt. The Sun Belt is very happy with how it looks now.

my bad...i meant Arkansas instead of Alaska...good catch...

arkansas was in the swc with the TX schools from 1915-1991...the line up was in the spirit of the old swc...so that's why the new swc west division has that particular line up...

as far as the swc east division...i wanted to keep the LA schools together in the same division with the southeast schools...if LA Tech has issue with being in the division with the other LA schools then stAte can switch with LA Tech...

all of this is just speculation anyways until something actually happens...it's conversation bait...reality is that all this CUSA/Sunbelt reorganization probably won't happen because of egos & politics...

Associating stAte with the pigs like that will only catch the wrath of stAte fans. An AR State poster on this site does a very good job of the state's history. If my memory serves, the pigs would have been in the Big 8 if trains were as accessible from UArk to those schools as they were to Texas 100 years ago. The last paragraph is completely correct with one exception, erase the word "probably". I don't ever want to see that SBC/CUSA mess happen.

(12-07-2017 07:13 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  The Big Sky will pull the rug out from Sac State football if they move their other sports. If the Hornets move they will not be playing Big Sky football, and it may jeopardize the football memberships of Cal Poly and UC Davis as well.

This is my understanding as well. My question is hypothetical. What I want to know is whether Sac State has any reason to prefer the Big Sky to the Big West for non-football sports other than the Big Sky's threat to pull out that rug.

(12-07-2017 11:56 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 07:13 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  The Big Sky will pull the rug out from Sac State football if they move their other sports. If the Hornets move they will not be playing Big Sky football, and it may jeopardize the football memberships of Cal Poly and UC Davis as well.

This is my understanding as well. My question is hypothetical. What I want to know is whether Sac State has any reason to prefer the Big Sky to the Big West for non-football sports other than the Big Sky's threat to pull out that rug.

Of course. Remaining in the Big Sky means they stand out from the other Cal State's -
or so I've heard.

A possible solution to the Big Sky pulling out its rug - The Big West rolls out its own rug and sponsors football. To keep Davis and Cal Poly in the Big West, poaching Sac State likely means another one or two full members as well (a Portland State, NAU, Eastern Washington). Not to mention more degradation for volleyball, softball or the other sports Hawaii cares about.

All because of Sac State. Just not worth it to open Pandora's Box.

What I want to know Mongoose, is that other than being in California, why is Sac State more ideal than say, NMSU or Seattle as the Big West's 12th member. We know NMSU can bring it in basketball. Sac State not so much.

(12-07-2017 12:46 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 11:19 AM)chrisattsu Wrote:  One theory that I have seen is that basically the XII is picked a part by the other conferences. How depends on who you ask and which teams each conference is willing to absorb.

This is the driver...but it's not really up to the conferences...mostly up to the TV execs and how they decide to divvy up the money.

Also what Stu said above. No point in moving around (which incurs entrance and exit fees) when the real movement is still just off the horizon.

WAC just needs to stay alive and hope some homeless folks land in their lap in addition to whatever D2 movement happens between now and then.

I don't see the reason for the Big 12 to split up. Each team received just under $35 million in Big 12 revenue last year. That does not include $15 million that Texas gets for the LHN and $7 million that Oklahoma gets from their network. They will receive additional revenue from this year's championship game, which could come out to $30 million to the conference. The conference is doing well financially by itself and Oklahoma and Texas are doing extremely well.

There is also no reason to expand and add G5 schools. There are no G5 schools left that are appealing enough. I think the Big 12 already made that decision. Being able to play a championship game with ten members makes the idea of expansion kind of pointless.

The same for the Sun Belt. They have made the decision to stay at ten for the next few years and will play a Championship game in 2018. I see no reason to bail out CUSA and merge with them.

(12-07-2017 01:49 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  The same for the Sun Belt. They have made the decision to stay at ten for the next few years and will play a Championship game in 2018. I see no reason to bail out CUSA and merge with them.

I think the Sun Belt is in much better long term shape than the C-USA. That conference is unstable.

A little off topic, but will the NCAA allow the creation of a new conference, or have they put a moratorium on that?

The WAC still holds that card. I think Hurd is working behind the scenes to start FBS football in the Wac again. He should approach Sun Belt and Conf USA teams that are geographically compatible and invite them over. Maybe that would entice the Montanas over too.

(12-07-2017 01:49 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 12:46 AM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 11:19 AM)chrisattsu Wrote:  One theory that I have seen is that basically the XII is picked a part by the other conferences. How depends on who you ask and which teams each conference is willing to absorb.

This is the driver...but it's not really up to the conferences...mostly up to the TV execs and how they decide to divvy up the money.

Also what Stu said above. No point in moving around (which incurs entrance and exit fees) when the real movement is still just off the horizon.

WAC just needs to stay alive and hope some homeless folks land in their lap in addition to whatever D2 movement happens between now and then.

I don't see the reason for the Big 12 to split up. Each team received just under $35 million in Big 12 revenue last year. That does not include $15 million that Texas gets for the LHN and $7 million that Oklahoma gets from their network. They will receive additional revenue from this year's championship game, which could come out to $30 million to the conference. The conference is doing well financially by itself and Oklahoma and Texas are doing extremely well.

There is also no reason to expand and add G5 schools. There are no G5 schools left that are appealing enough. I think the Big 12 already made that decision. Being able to play a championship game with ten members makes the idea of expansion kind of pointless.

That's fine if the B12 was in a vacuum...except they aren't and the B12 is getting out paced by the SEC and B1G. B12 ratings are crap compared to SEC and B1G (B12 CCG drew half as many viewers as SEC, and only had games in the top 5 watched games 6 times since week 5). Point being SEC and B1G new TV deals will allow those schools to further out pace the B12 over the long run. Not sure why Texas and Oklahoma would be ok with that.

Agree B12 doesn't add G5's. There is no one out there for them to add to close the gap...otherwise they would have already added them.

(12-07-2017 12:25 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 11:56 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 07:13 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  The Big Sky will pull the rug out from Sac State football if they move their other sports. If the Hornets move they will not be playing Big Sky football, and it may jeopardize the football memberships of Cal Poly and UC Davis as well.

This is my understanding as well. My question is hypothetical. What I want to know is whether Sac State has any reason to prefer the Big Sky to the Big West for non-football sports other than the Big Sky's threat to pull out that rug.

Of course. Remaining in the Big Sky means they stand out from the other Cal State's -
or so I've heard.

A possible solution to the Big Sky pulling out its rug - The Big West rolls out its own rug and sponsors football. To keep Davis and Cal Poly in the Big West, poaching Sac State likely means another one or two full members as well (a Portland State, NAU, Eastern Washington). Not to mention more degradation for volleyball, softball or the other sports Hawaii cares about.

All because of Sac State. Just not worth it to open Pandora's Box.

We're not going to risk our FB home which could result in us being the FCS version of NMSU. Not happening.

(12-07-2017 03:36 PM)dancingNMSUaggie Wrote:  The WAC still holds that card. I think Hurd is working behind the scenes to start FBS football in the Wac again. He should approach Sun Belt and Conf USA teams that are geographically compatible and invite them over. Maybe that would entice the Montanas over too.

Doubt it. I have it on good authority that they have their eye set on sending their teams to the northern great plains.

(12-07-2017 12:28 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  What I want to know Mongoose, is that other than being in California, why is Sac State more ideal than say, NMSU or Seattle as the Big West's 12th member. We know NMSU can bring it in basketball. Sac State not so much.

Actually I don't think Sac State would be the ideal choice to round out the Big West's membership at 12, for exactly the reason you cite. However I suspect some Big West schools might feel otherwise, based simply on Sac State's status as the only remaining non-P5 D-I public university in California that's not in the conference, and/or its potential to serve as a convenient travel partner for UC Davis.

That's why I'm trying to understand whether Sac State would prefer to move non-football sports to the Big West if not for the threat of Big Sky retaliation against Sac State's football program. If that desire exists, and if there's mutual interest from the Big West, I could see the Big West standing pat at 11 members for a few years in hopes that an eventual shake-up in the D-I football landscape could free up Sac State to join the conference.

(12-07-2017 11:42 PM)SDHornet Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 03:36 PM)dancingNMSUaggie Wrote:  The WAC still holds that card. I think Hurd is working behind the scenes to start FBS football in the Wac again. He should approach Sun Belt and Conf USA teams that are geographically compatible and invite them over. Maybe that would entice the Montanas over too.

Doubt it. I have it on good authority that they have their eye set on sending their teams to the northern great plains.

Because a 6 1/2 hour flight to Grand Forks (pop 100,000K) is so much more attractive to send teams to than a 4 hour flight to Sacramento (pop 2.6 million), dontcha know.

(12-07-2017 02:04 PM)RobtheAggie Wrote:  

(12-07-2017 01:49 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  The same for the Sun Belt. They have made the decision to stay at ten for the next few years and will play a Championship game in 2018. I see no reason to bail out CUSA and merge with them.

I think the Sun Belt is in much better long term shape than the C-USA. That conference is unstable.

A little off topic, but will the NCAA allow the creation of a new conference, or have they put a moratorium on that?

There's no effective moratorium on any new conferences, but you'd have to wait on autobids and you'd be outside the CFP payout.

For a new FBS conference, there is a moratorium, but after the Liberty waiver, there's probably no block that the NCAA is going to use. They'll just smother the new conference with the existing rules about at larges and not add any CFP payout access