(03-30-2013 07:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 07:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 05:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 05:56 PM)Dukes09 Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 05:29 PM)chess Wrote:  That's what it looks like.

Too bad. ODU, Charlotte, and Marshall could use a closer school in the conference.

it is in everyone's best long terms interests to come together in an east coast conference one day. that is if america 12 and/or cusa schools can get over the "lower perception" of the asu, ga so and jmu teams in the sun belt.

Ive been saying that for a while. CUSA and the rest of the Sunbelt should have merged. Then there would be no real need to bring up more FCS schools and CUSA would have had 2 very geographically workable divisions--one in the east, and one in the west. However, there are certain lines that some schools will not allow to be crossed. So, because of that, we will continue to have not one, not two, but 3 overlapping non-AQ conferences. Two is pretty inefficient. Three is just a special kind of stupid.

What the heck, let's see what you get if you merge the BE FB holdovers with CUSA and SBC, excluding schools transitioning to FBS, and then divide into two divisions/conferences.

West: UTEP, SMU, UNT, Houston, Rice, Tulsa, La Tech, Tulane, ULL, ULM, Memphis, MTSU, USM, Ark St

East: UConn, Temple, Marshall, Cincinnati, WKU, ECU, UAB, Troy, USA, UCF, USF, FAU, FIU

As a fan of one of those teams, do you like that alignment?

Well first off, you physically cant even have a 14 team division as NCAA rules require that you play every other team within your division. Assuming no OOC games, the best you could do is a 13 team division. Secondly, the idea is that CUSA has already essentially merged with the Sunbelt. My sugggestion is to simply take the other 4 teams. Why is that such a radical proposition? I suppose you could have two seperate conferences. But keep in mind you are mixing schools that have 30-50 millon dollar budgets with schools that have athletic budgets that are half that much. The merger Im thinking of would look something like this.


West: UTEP, UNT, Rice, La Tech, ULL, ULM, MTSU, Ark St, UTSA, N Texas

East: Marshall, WKU, UAB, Troy, USA, FAU, FIU, ODU, USM, Charlotte

Now, how is that so incredibly horrible and unfathonable? Which schools is it you find totally distasteful? Who is the awful fit? Most of these schools are going to be playing against one another anyway. These schools all have roughly compatible athletic budgets and exist within a pretty resonably tight footprint. Lots of driveable games in both divisions. It seems like a perfectly reasonable option that avoids the alternative---bringing up a slew of unecessary FCS schools.

If I were the other conferences, I'd even agree to set up the BCS non-AQ payout to pay conferences on an equal "per school" basis just so we wouldnt have to bring up any more FCS schools. Theres plenty of inventory and plenty of FBS schools. There is no shortage. We just need to organize things so nobody ends up homeless.

I don't care one way or the other -- I was just making the point that almost every school is prideful and thinks it's too good to be associated with certain other schools.

You've proved the point by taking Houston off of that list and not answering my question. The reason you didn't answer my question is that you don't want Houston to be associated with some of those other teams. You're entitled to that opinion, but it means that you can't complain when supporters of any other schools feel exactly the same way and say, "We don't ever want to be in the same league with ______."

And that feeling, which you share with those folks, is the reason why these leagues won't ever just combine together.

(03-30-2013 08:47 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 08:19 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  The MAC doesn't care about weak football as long as the football is good (see Northern Illinois).

You know, for a counter-example to be effective, it has to actually contradict the claim.

Pointing out that those Presidents who aren't as concerned about the quality of the football would want good quality basketball does not imply that a good football school that is a good institutional fit and reasonably close to the MAC footprint needs a good BBall program to get in ... so the NIU case doesn't contradict it.

But it would be a mistake to assume that the relative homogeneity of the core schools of the MAC means that the twelve Presidents (or for those Presidents that don't much care, the Athletic Directors) think in lockstep.

Sorry it was a typo.

The MAC in order looks at football and academics as its 2 main criteria. Basketball in the MAC is expected to be Akron and Kent State the local teams for the conference tournament.

There has been talk in the past about setting up a bowl game in Little Rock with the MAC. That is where I could see the MAC having some interest in Arkansas State as a host conference in a Little Rock bowl game.

(03-30-2013 10:43 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  The MAC in order looks at football and academics as its 2 main criteria.

Hence they picked UMass?

(03-30-2013 09:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 07:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 07:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 05:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 05:56 PM)Dukes09 Wrote:  it is in everyone's best long terms interests to come together in an east coast conference one day. that is if america 12 and/or cusa schools can get over the "lower perception" of the asu, ga so and jmu teams in the sun belt.

Ive been saying that for a while. CUSA and the rest of the Sunbelt should have merged. Then there would be no real need to bring up more FCS schools and CUSA would have had 2 very geographically workable divisions--one in the east, and one in the west. However, there are certain lines that some schools will not allow to be crossed. So, because of that, we will continue to have not one, not two, but 3 overlapping non-AQ conferences. Two is pretty inefficient. Three is just a special kind of stupid.

What the heck, let's see what you get if you merge the BE FB holdovers with CUSA and SBC, excluding schools transitioning to FBS, and then divide into two divisions/conferences.

West: UTEP, SMU, UNT, Houston, Rice, Tulsa, La Tech, Tulane, ULL, ULM, Memphis, MTSU, USM, Ark St

East: UConn, Temple, Marshall, Cincinnati, WKU, ECU, UAB, Troy, USA, UCF, USF, FAU, FIU

As a fan of one of those teams, do you like that alignment?

Well first off, you physically cant even have a 14 team division as NCAA rules require that you play every other team within your division. Assuming no OOC games, the best you could do is a 13 team division. Secondly, the idea is that CUSA has already essentially merged with the Sunbelt. My sugggestion is to simply take the other 4 teams. Why is that such a radical proposition? I suppose you could have two seperate conferences. But keep in mind you are mixing schools that have 30-50 millon dollar budgets with schools that have athletic budgets that are half that much. The merger Im thinking of would look something like this.


West: UTEP, UNT, Rice, La Tech, ULL, ULM, MTSU, Ark St, UTSA, N Texas

East: Marshall, WKU, UAB, Troy, USA, FAU, FIU, ODU, USM, Charlotte

Now, how is that so incredibly horrible and unfathonable? Which schools is it you find totally distasteful? Who is the awful fit? Most of these schools are going to be playing against one another anyway. These schools all have roughly compatible athletic budgets and exist within a pretty resonably tight footprint. Lots of driveable games in both divisions. It seems like a perfectly reasonable option that avoids the alternative---bringing up a slew of unecessary FCS schools.

If I were the other conferences, I'd even agree to set up the BCS non-AQ payout to pay conferences on an equal "per school" basis just so we wouldnt have to bring up any more FCS schools. Theres plenty of inventory and plenty of FBS schools. There is no shortage. We just need to organize things so nobody ends up homeless.

I don't care one way or the other -- I was just making the point that almost every school is prideful and thinks it's too good to be associated with certain other schools.

You've proved the point by taking Houston off of that list and not answering my question. The reason you didn't answer my question is that you don't want Houston to be associated with some of those other teams. You're entitled to that opinion, but it means that you can't complain when supporters of any other schools feel exactly the same way and say, "We don't ever want to be in the same league with ______."

And that feeling, which you share with those folks, is the reason why these leagues won't ever just combine together.

I did answer your question. You just didn't like the answer. The 14 school divisions are not legal. All I did was remove ALL the C-TBA schools (not just Houston) to illustrate what a merger would have looked like. One more raid and that's what CUSA will look like anyway. Not that bad.

(03-31-2013 12:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 09:20 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 07:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 07:22 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 05:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Ive been saying that for a while. CUSA and the rest of the Sunbelt should have merged. Then there would be no real need to bring up more FCS schools and CUSA would have had 2 very geographically workable divisions--one in the east, and one in the west. However, there are certain lines that some schools will not allow to be crossed. So, because of that, we will continue to have not one, not two, but 3 overlapping non-AQ conferences. Two is pretty inefficient. Three is just a special kind of stupid.

What the heck, let's see what you get if you merge the BE FB holdovers with CUSA and SBC, excluding schools transitioning to FBS, and then divide into two divisions/conferences.

West: UTEP, SMU, UNT, Houston, Rice, Tulsa, La Tech, Tulane, ULL, ULM, Memphis, MTSU, USM, Ark St

East: UConn, Temple, Marshall, Cincinnati, WKU, ECU, UAB, Troy, USA, UCF, USF, FAU, FIU

As a fan of one of those teams, do you like that alignment?

Well first off, you physically cant even have a 14 team division as NCAA rules require that you play every other team within your division. Assuming no OOC games, the best you could do is a 13 team division. Secondly, the idea is that CUSA has already essentially merged with the Sunbelt. My sugggestion is to simply take the other 4 teams. Why is that such a radical proposition? I suppose you could have two seperate conferences. But keep in mind you are mixing schools that have 30-50 millon dollar budgets with schools that have athletic budgets that are half that much. The merger Im thinking of would look something like this.


West: UTEP, UNT, Rice, La Tech, ULL, ULM, MTSU, Ark St, UTSA, N Texas

East: Marshall, WKU, UAB, Troy, USA, FAU, FIU, ODU, USM, Charlotte

Now, how is that so incredibly horrible and unfathonable? Which schools is it you find totally distasteful? Who is the awful fit? Most of these schools are going to be playing against one another anyway. These schools all have roughly compatible athletic budgets and exist within a pretty resonably tight footprint. Lots of driveable games in both divisions. It seems like a perfectly reasonable option that avoids the alternative---bringing up a slew of unecessary FCS schools.

If I were the other conferences, I'd even agree to set up the BCS non-AQ payout to pay conferences on an equal "per school" basis just so we wouldnt have to bring up any more FCS schools. Theres plenty of inventory and plenty of FBS schools. There is no shortage. We just need to organize things so nobody ends up homeless.

I don't care one way or the other -- I was just making the point that almost every school is prideful and thinks it's too good to be associated with certain other schools.

You've proved the point by taking Houston off of that list and not answering my question. The reason you didn't answer my question is that you don't want Houston to be associated with some of those other teams. You're entitled to that opinion, but it means that you can't complain when supporters of any other schools feel exactly the same way and say, "We don't ever want to be in the same league with ______."

And that feeling, which you share with those folks, is the reason why these leagues won't ever just combine together.

I did answer your question. You just didn't like the answer. The 14 school divisions are not legal. All I did was remove ALL the C-TBA schools (not just Houston) to illustrate what a merger would have looked like. One more raid and that's what CUSA will look like anyway. Not that bad.

You removed all of those schools because you want Houston to be associated with them and not with the others.

The point remains, you think Houston is "too good" to be in a conference with some of those teams, just like LSU thinks it's "too good" for Tulane, and Tulane thinks it's "too good" for La Tech, and La Tech thinks it's "too good" for La-Monroe, and I'm sure there's someone else that La-Monroe thinks they're "too good" to be associated with.

It's inevitable that people are going to think that way, and we just have to deal with it. We can't demand that other people stop being elitist when we won't do the same ourselves.

(03-31-2013 01:02 AM)Wedge Wrote:  You removed all of those schools because you want Houston to be associated with them and not with the others.

Obviously a fan of one school will include the other schools they'd like to see play in their stadium, and leave out the schools they'd be less interested in seeing play in their stadium ...

... but one way or another, some schools HAD to be removed, since even with rotating group rather than static divisional scheduling, the largest viable conference size is probably 20 ~ especially for a Mid-Major conference, where budgets will often require one or two "payday" games against a BCS school, so more than 9 conference games is not feasible.

So a merged Mid-Major "conference" with divisions of over 10 teams each is really a reshuffled pair of conferences, which each might have divisions of their own. If they wanted a de-facto common champion, they could put together a #1 v #1 bowl, except when one of the conferences might yield the Group of Five rep it would be a #1 v #2 bowl.

Also, under NCAA rules, mergers mean that one of the two conference leaves behind their conference assets, including NCAA units owing to conference representatives. That encourages realignment to be in terms of one conference raiding another, as opposed to conferences merging and one of them leaving their $1.5m+ per year NCAA units behind.

(03-31-2013 01:07 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 01:02 AM)Wedge Wrote:  You removed all of those schools because you want Houston to be associated with them and not with the others.

Obviously a fan of one school will include the other schools they'd like to see play in their stadium, and leave out the schools they'd be less interested in seeing play in their stadium ...

... but one way or another, some schools HAD to be removed, since even with rotating group rather than static divisional scheduling, the largest viable conference size is probably 20 ~ especially for a Mid-Major conference, where budgets will often require one or two "payday" games against a BCS school, so more than 9 conference games is not feasible.

So a merged Mid-Major "conference" with divisions of over 10 teams each is really a reshuffled pair of conferences, which each might have divisions of their own. If they wanted a de-facto common champion, they could put together a #1 v #1 bowl, except when one of the conferences might yield the Group of Five rep it would be a #1 v #2 bowl.

Also, under NCAA rules, mergers mean that one of the two conference leaves behind their conference assets, including NCAA units owing to conference representatives. That encourages realignment to be in terms of one conference raiding another, as opposed to conferences merging and one of them leaving their $1.5m+ per year NCAA units behind.

Right. Re-aligning these non-contract leagues for the sake of nothing but geography not only irritates everyone's sense of who they do and don't want to be associated with, it also is not profitable.

(03-31-2013 01:23 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Right. Re-aligning these non-contract leagues for the sake of nothing but geography not only irritates everyone's sense of who they do and don't want to be associated with, it also is not profitable.

With all the attention on the conference media contracts, its easy to forget the NCAA units, but for the Sunbelt, which has normally been a single-bid, one and out conference, but which may occasionally get a second appearance, say through a play-in game win, that's six-eight appearance over the six year life span of appearance shares, which is $1.5m-$2m to the conference, which even in a 12 game conference is $125,000-$160,000 average per school (the exact amount depends upon the percentage that the conference allocates to the appearing team, which ranges from nothing in the ACC ~ they use the Three Musketeers rules ~ to 75% in the A10).

$100,000+ isn't big money, but at the same time, you can't just kick $100,000 to the curb: a hypothetical newly formed 28 team conference has to be able to beat the combined media income of the two merged conference by at least $2.8m to just match that. And since its combining the schools that drove the value of the media incomes of the two original conferences, that can be tough.

Even worse for CUSA, which has been a two-appearance conference over the past few years (two bids, and two games in the year it had one appearance), which gives 12 units, $3m unit income, and an average $200,000+ per school as a baseline.

And if there is a run or two in the past six years (I'm not going to look up whether there has been), that can easily go up to $300,000 per school.

And if there is an appearance bonus in the conference, while that reduces the average payout per non-appearing school, it means that the appearing schools may be getting $500,000 to $1m of their conference payout from NCAA units, and that likely converts the general "show me the financial benefit" conference wide into two or three firm "no" votes from the strongest basketball schools. Remember that basketball is not a Full Time Equivalent scholarship limit sport, but a headcount scholarship limit sport, so (especially in state schools with lower in-state tuitions), there can be a big difference in both scholarship costs and recruiting costs in a mostly in-state squad with a few out-of-state recruits, as the weaker BBall schools in the conference will have, and a team built up by recruiting nationally, as the stronger BBall schools will have.

This is my first post!

What is Arkansas State to the MAC is true? Does the SBC add Liberty and JMU?

(03-31-2013 12:34 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 10:43 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  The MAC in order looks at football and academics as its 2 main criteria.

Hence they picked UMass?

Academics and TV market played the key role in adding UMass.

Partnering in with Temple as a FB only was a factor too.

(03-31-2013 03:28 PM)gatek99 Wrote:  This is my first post!

What is Arkansas State to the MAC is true? Does the SBC add Liberty and JMU?

I could see JMU, not so much Liberty.

(03-31-2013 04:46 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  Academics and TV market played the key role in adding UMass.

Partnering in with Temple as a FB only was a factor too.

See, now you have a third criteria that over-rode one of your two primary criteria ~ TV market.

Though in any event, the most interesting adds from a football sporting perspective would also slot in to the top half of MAC BBall.

(03-31-2013 03:28 PM)gatek99 Wrote:  What is Arkansas State to the MAC is true? Does the SBC add Liberty and JMU?

On press reporting, SBC supposedly adds JMU in any event, to replay WKY, which again on press reporting is going to CUSA.

Arkansas State to the MAC is a possibility that has been raised ... how likely depends in part on what are the other prospective adds.

So glad Wichita State embrassed the buckeyes

.

(03-31-2013 03:28 PM)gatek99 Wrote:  This is my first post!

What is Arkansas State to the MAC is true? Does the SBC add Liberty and JMU?

I highly doubt ASU would want to go to the MAC. With the impending departure of WKU it may seem like the cool thing to do but you have to look at an extended period of time.

Go look up MAC attendance, atmosphere, and records and that is all you will need to know. They had a solid year and usually produce a good team but even when the Sun Belt was like eight teams it's champion could usually beat the MAC champion or put up a good fight.

And factor in even if you are in the West division of the Sun Belt it's not like you wont ever play east teams, especially in sports like Baseball you will already have a whole lineup of eastern teams.

(03-31-2013 06:23 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  So glad Wichita State embrassed the buckeyes.

It would have been even worse if they had embarrassed the Bucks.

And so sad that St. Cloud out-shot the Redhawks, but what does it have to do with where JMU is going to go if they get an invite to transition to the FBS?

(03-31-2013 06:40 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 03:28 PM)gatek99 Wrote:  This is my first post!

What is Arkansas State to the MAC is true? Does the SBC add Liberty and JMU?

I highly doubt ASU would want to go to the MAC. With the impending departure of WKU it may seem like the cool thing to do but you have to look at an extended period of time.

Go look up MAC attendance, atmosphere, and records and that is all you will need to know. They had a solid year and usually produce a good team but even when the Sun Belt was like eight teams it's champion could usually beat the MAC champion or put up a good fight.

And factor in even if you are in the West division of the Sun Belt it's not like you wont ever play east teams, especially in sports like Baseball you will already have a whole lineup of eastern teams.

When did this happen? The champs rarely play each other.

I also doubt ASU would go to the MAC since it's basically a lateral move, unless they're unhappy with the moves the conference is making that's the only reason it's even a possibility. Stranger things have happened though.

(03-31-2013 07:16 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 06:40 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 03:28 PM)gatek99 Wrote:  This is my first post!

What is Arkansas State to the MAC is true? Does the SBC add Liberty and JMU?

I highly doubt ASU would want to go to the MAC. With the impending departure of WKU it may seem like the cool thing to do but you have to look at an extended period of time.

Go look up MAC attendance, atmosphere, and records and that is all you will need to know. They had a solid year and usually produce a good team but even when the Sun Belt was like eight teams it's champion could usually beat the MAC champion or put up a good fight.

And factor in even if you are in the West division of the Sun Belt it's not like you wont ever play east teams, especially in sports like Baseball you will already have a whole lineup of eastern teams.

When did this happen? The champs rarely play each other.

I also doubt ASU would go to the MAC since it's basically a lateral move, unless they're unhappy with the moves the conference is making that's the only reason it's even a possibility. Stranger things have happened though.

Arkansas State was once in the Big West as a football-only member. So yes, stranger things have happened.

(03-31-2013 07:16 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 06:40 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 03:28 PM)gatek99 Wrote:  This is my first post!

What is Arkansas State to the MAC is true? Does the SBC add Liberty and JMU?

I highly doubt ASU would want to go to the MAC. With the impending departure of WKU it may seem like the cool thing to do but you have to look at an extended period of time.

Go look up MAC attendance, atmosphere, and records and that is all you will need to know. They had a solid year and usually produce a good team but even when the Sun Belt was like eight teams it's champion could usually beat the MAC champion or put up a good fight.

And factor in even if you are in the West division of the Sun Belt it's not like you wont ever play east teams, especially in sports like Baseball you will already have a whole lineup of eastern teams.

When did this happen? The champs rarely play each other.

I also doubt ASU would go to the MAC since it's basically a lateral move, unless they're unhappy with the moves the conference is making that's the only reason it's even a possibility. Stranger things have happened though.

1) Last year your football was better than ours. Congrats.
2) Our facilities and fan support are a wash (some might argue that ours are better - but USA certainly can't argue facilities with anyone)
3) Our teams have room to grow. Some of yours do, but not all. Some are mature programs.

If I'm the MAC, I'm not sure that bringing on two teams that would rather be in CUSA (and both stAte and ULL would) makes any sense because both those teams are going to pull a Temple on you the first change they get.

North Dakota State a better fit for the MAC or are they too far west? Probably the best FCS candidate out there

(03-31-2013 08:44 PM)billings Wrote:  North Dakota State a better fit for the MAC or are they too far west? Probably the best FCS candidate out there

NDSU could win a million FCS championships and still would only be taken by a desperate conference. Its not their fault. Its just geography.

By the way, the Belt is kind of in a bit of a pickle if they need to go to 12. If I were NDSU, I'd be working this opportunity. Its probably a once in 20 years window where NDSU could even be in the picture.