+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: Metro should add 4-6 bball schools (/thread-627135.html)
Metro should add 4-6 bball schools - Captain Bearcat - 03-29-2013 11:45 AM
The Metro / American / Conference TBA should add the following schools: Wichita State, VCU, SLU, Dayton, Belmont, and Davidson.
If we do this, it puts us right back on the map in basketball. It also makes a divisional split more doable for non-revenue sports, decreasing costs across the board. Also, consider this: the old Big East was in the BCS for football for one reason: it was undeniably an elite basketball conference. They couldn't afford to keep us out of the conversation. If the Metro is an elite basketball conference, it will help the perception of the football conference for the same reason.
Making the additions non-football schools has one big advantage: they improve basketball without adding deadweight in football. Sorry WKU, MTSU, Charlotte.
I realize that SLU and Dayton might get offers to join the Big East. But even if they say no to the Metro, adding the other 4 still gets us back in the realm of an elite basketball conference.
RE: Metro should add 4-6 bball schools - BruceMcF - 03-29-2013 11:55 AM
(03-29-2013 11:45 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: The Metro / American / Conference TBA should add the following schools: Wichita State, VCU, SLU, Dayton, Belmont, and Davidson.A hybrid FB/BB league with more BB playing schools than FB playing schools ... brilliant! What could possibly go wrong?
Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?
RE: Metro should add 4-6 bball schools - CommuterBob - 03-29-2013 12:00 PM
(03-29-2013 11:55 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:(03-29-2013 11:45 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: The Metro / American / Conference TBA should add the following schools: Wichita State, VCU, SLU, Dayton, Belmont, and Davidson.A hybrid FB/BB league with more BB playing schools than FB playing schools ... brilliant! What could possibly go wrong?
Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?
LOL. I agree, the hybrid idea causes unnecessary tension. It detracts from the mission of the conference. No need to re-establish the same issue that tore the conference apart.
RE: Metro should add 4-6 bball schools - 1845 Bear - 03-29-2013 12:05 PM
I could see 2 or at most 3 nonfb members.
They wouldn't be able to politically change things and if it let to being an annually better league with more bids it would help pay for itself.
RE: Metro should add 4-6 bball schools - 10thMountain - 03-29-2013 12:05 PM
Sure, the first island with genetically engineered dinosaurs didnt work, but I have a GOOD feeling about this one!
RE: Metro should add 4-6 bball schools - Attackcoog - 03-29-2013 12:14 PM
(03-29-2013 12:05 PM)S11 Wrote: I could see 2 or at most 3 nonfb members.
They wouldn't be able to politically change things and if it let to being an annually better league with more bids it would help pay for itself.
^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^
Utilizing the hybrid structure in a very limited way to goose the performance of C-TBA basketball makes sense. Going to 4-6 is way too much. Im thinking 1-3 is a better idea. That would be less than 20% conference. But it could help the conference geographically, could help NCAA bid performance, increase the RPI, and add valuable makrkets. The key is to not overuse this tool. Perhaps VCU, Wichita, and UMass might be a reasonable trio to build out the basketball side. I could get behind something along those lines.
RE: Metro should add 4-6 bball schools - hburg - 03-29-2013 12:23 PM
Why would a conference add basketball only schools when they just had a split from basketball only schools? Doesn't make sense.
RE: Metro should add 4-6 bball schools - 1845 Bear - 03-29-2013 12:25 PM
(03-29-2013 12:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:(03-29-2013 12:05 PM)S11 Wrote: I could see 2 or at most 3 nonfb members.
They wouldn't be able to politically change things and if it let to being an annually better league with more bids it would help pay for itself.
^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^
Utilizing the hybrid structure in a very limited way to goose the performance of C-TBA basketball makes sense. Going to 4-6 is way too much. Im thinking 1-3 is a better idea. That would be less than 20% conference. But it could help the conference geographically, could help NCAA bid performance, increase the RPI, and add valuable makrkets. The key is to not overuse this tool. Perhaps VCU, Wichita, and UMass might be a reasonable trio to build out the basketball side. I could get behind something along those lines.
VCU might be tough to get.
WSU is ideal as a travel partner for Tulsa.
UMass is a bad pick. You'd likely have to pick up their now-FBS football (i think an ncaa rule about it exists) and if UConn leaves it's far from everyone else.
Grabbing a school like Belmont, College of Charleston, or someone else more centrally located is a better option.
RE: Metro should add 4-6 bball schools - HP-TBDPITL - 03-29-2013 12:35 PM
First of all, they will be on the basketball map...what they need is for schools like Tulane, ECU & SMU to continue making progress and schools like Tulsa and Houston to return to relevancy.
Secondly, there are some good move-ups that can be relevant in basketball...in other words, why not wait for ODU, Charlotte or UMass or someone like them to get better in football and then just expand in numbers. If you are going to have 16 schools in other sports, why not just go there with football members.
The unequal revenue situation just causes problems, the Aresco League needs to have some focus and it will succeed in the long run...just as the MWC has been able to do.
RE: Metro should add 4-6 bball schools - Attackcoog - 03-29-2013 12:37 PM
(03-29-2013 12:25 PM)S11 Wrote:(03-29-2013 12:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:(03-29-2013 12:05 PM)S11 Wrote: I could see 2 or at most 3 nonfb members.
They wouldn't be able to politically change things and if it let to being an annually better league with more bids it would help pay for itself.
^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^
Utilizing the hybrid structure in a very limited way to goose the performance of C-TBA basketball makes sense. Going to 4-6 is way too much. Im thinking 1-3 is a better idea. That would be less than 20% conference. But it could help the conference geographically, could help NCAA bid performance, increase the RPI, and add valuable makrkets. The key is to not overuse this tool. Perhaps VCU, Wichita, and UMass might be a reasonable trio to build out the basketball side. I could get behind something along those lines.
VCU might be tough to get.
WSU is ideal as a travel partner for Tulsa.
UMass is a bad pick. You'd likely have to pick up their now-FBS football (i think an ncaa rule about it exists) and if UConn leaves it's far from everyone else.
Grabbing a school like Belmont, College of Charleston, or someone else more centrally located is a better option.
Theres no NCAA rule making it necessary to pick up UMass football. However, I guess its possible the MAC might force them out. If thats the case Richmond, Davidson, or another would be a reasonable substitiute---or just take VCU and Wichita and stop. I like the UMass pick because it sets the stage to help elevate that schools profile should they need to be added for football in the future.
RE: Metro should add 4-6 bball schools - Attackcoog - 03-29-2013 12:39 PM
(03-29-2013 12:35 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote: First of all, they will be on the basketball map...what they need is for schools like Tulane, ECU & SMU to continue making progress and schools like Tulsa and Houston to return to relevancy.
Secondly, there are some good move-ups that can be relevant in basketball...in other words, why not wait for ODU, Charlotte or UMass or someone like them to get better in football and then just expand in numbers. If you are going to have 16 schools in other sports, why not just go there with football members.
The unequal revenue situation just causes problems, the Aresco League needs to have some focus and it will succeed in the long run...just as the MWC has been able to do.
If you are adding members in the future, its likely because the conference suffered a defection. Thats when you would take a look at such teams.
RE: Metro should add 4-6 bball schools - HP-TBDPITL - 03-29-2013 12:45 PM
(03-29-2013 12:39 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:(03-29-2013 12:35 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote: First of all, they will be on the basketball map...what they need is for schools like Tulane, ECU & SMU to continue making progress and schools like Tulsa and Houston to return to relevancy.
Secondly, there are some good move-ups that can be relevant in basketball...in other words, why not wait for ODU, Charlotte or UMass or someone like them to get better in football and then just expand in numbers. If you are going to have 16 schools in other sports, why not just go there with football members.
The unequal revenue situation just causes problems, the Aresco League needs to have some focus and it will succeed in the long run...just as the MWC has been able to do.
If you are adding members in the future, its likely because the conference suffered a defection. Thats when you would take a look at such teams.
Maybe...but it also may be that those programs add something to the bottom line because they have succeeded. Other conferences are moving to 14 and maybe more, so there is no reason this league may not as well.
RE: Metro should add 4-6 bball schools - Bull - 03-29-2013 12:49 PM
Two is a great idea. WSU in the west, and one more in the East. Hopefully VCU. No hybrid worries.
RE: Metro should add 4-6 bball schools - bluesox - 03-29-2013 01:06 PM
I could see CUSA add WSU and VCU, don't see the metro doing it.
RE: Metro should add 4-6 bball schools - mlb - 03-29-2013 01:09 PM
Dayton is going to be in the Big East in a year. They aren't joining C-DOA.
RE: Metro should add 4-6 bball schools - 1845 Bear - 03-29-2013 01:21 PM
(03-29-2013 12:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:(03-29-2013 12:25 PM)S11 Wrote:(03-29-2013 12:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:(03-29-2013 12:05 PM)S11 Wrote: I could see 2 or at most 3 nonfb members.
They wouldn't be able to politically change things and if it let to being an annually better league with more bids it would help pay for itself.
^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^
Utilizing the hybrid structure in a very limited way to goose the performance of C-TBA basketball makes sense. Going to 4-6 is way too much. Im thinking 1-3 is a better idea. That would be less than 20% conference. But it could help the conference geographically, could help NCAA bid performance, increase the RPI, and add valuable makrkets. The key is to not overuse this tool. Perhaps VCU, Wichita, and UMass might be a reasonable trio to build out the basketball side. I could get behind something along those lines.
VCU might be tough to get.
WSU is ideal as a travel partner for Tulsa.
UMass is a bad pick. You'd likely have to pick up their now-FBS football (i think an ncaa rule about it exists) and if UConn leaves it's far from everyone else.
Grabbing a school like Belmont, College of Charleston, or someone else more centrally located is a better option.
Theres no NCAA rule making it necessary to pick up UMass football. However, I guess its possible the MAC might force them out. If thats the case Richmond, Davidson, or another would be a reasonable substitiute---or just take VCU and Wichita and stop. I like the UMass pick because it sets the stage to help elevate that schools profile should they need to be added for football in the future.
Pretty sure that if a school is in an FBS football league their other sports have to be either in that league or FCS.
RE: Metro should add 4-6 bball schools - Wedge - 03-29-2013 01:30 PM
(03-29-2013 01:21 PM)S11 Wrote: Pretty sure that if a school is in an FBS football league their other sports have to be either in that league or FCS.
I think you mean that if a school is a "full member" of a league that sponsors FBS football that they can't play FBS football as a member of a different league. That's correct.
RE: Metro should add 4-6 bball schools - nastar36 - 03-29-2013 01:35 PM
IMO, We should do nothing but quietly watch and wait for a year. This time next year the C7 will most likely add two more schools to get to 12. If Navy is still firmly committed for '15, we should add one, no more, to offset Navy's football only membership. VCU? Wichita St? Richmond?
RE: Metro should add 4-6 bball schools - 1845 Bear - 03-29-2013 01:41 PM
(03-29-2013 01:30 PM)Wedge Wrote:(03-29-2013 01:21 PM)S11 Wrote: Pretty sure that if a school is in an FBS football league their other sports have to be either in that league or FCS.
I think you mean that if a school is a "full member" of a league that sponsors FBS football that they can't play FBS football as a member of a different league. That's correct.
Yes. So unless they were BB only (good luck with that) it's a non-starter unless you want UMass football too.
RE: Metro should add 4-6 bball schools - 1845 Bear - 03-29-2013 01:42 PM
(03-29-2013 01:35 PM)nastar36 Wrote: IMO, We should do nothing but quietly watch and wait for a year. This time next year the C7 will most likely add two more schools to get to 12. If Navy is still firmly committed for '15, we should add one, no more, to offset Navy's football only membership. VCU? Wichita St? Richmond?
WSU is probably the easiest to pull. A Mo Valley Conference without Creighton is VERY weak and probably nowhere near as lucrative.