(04-12-2013 11:34 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 11:17 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  While that's true, to be fair, there's no lack of arrogance in either camp.

Sorry but the snobbery factor in CUSA is off the charts compared to the other GF confs..

No doubt about it !!!
The CUSA champs or chumps have a hard time being relegated to the little kids table...

(04-12-2013 09:37 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 09:23 AM)exCincy Kid Wrote:  Sturt, I see you posted this on the C-USA...be prepared for a very negative reaction over on that board.

Despite all their defections and FBS mostly unproven "newbies" and "wannabe's" about to join what's left of that conference, most of their posters seem to still think that C-USA is a better football league than the MAC, Sunbelt, MWC, etc. Truth is that while the MAC mostly stands pat, C-USA (at least in football and some other sports like baseball) grows weaker and weaker. The only good thing happening in C-USA is that the new invitees allow better geographical divisional line-ups and help shore up the loss of Memphis in hoops (a little).

Normal distribution (bell curve) predicts that a few of the newbies will, indeed, step up to be something better than they are... but at the moment, indeed, CUSA football lags behind MAC by a quarter-step... when those newbies improve, the two should line-up to be almost mirror images of each other.

All those new Southern teams will hurt CUSA recruiting even further with a 12 team SBC right behind them...

The only possible benefit I could see for a MAC-CUSA alliance is if the two conferences played their 12th game against each other on the final weekend of November. I don't know how that would work out for rivalry games like Ohio-Marshall.

This way a selection could be made a week in advance and pit #1 CUSA vs. #1 MAC and so forth down the line. It could help for scheduling and make that final weekend more interesting.

(04-12-2013 11:34 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 11:17 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  While that's true, to be fair, there's no lack of arrogance in either camp.

Sorry but the snobbery factor in CUSA is off the charts compared to the other GF confs..

It's not snobbery. It's an abysmally low level of confidence disguised as buffoonery.

(04-12-2013 11:34 AM)mufanatehc Wrote:  The berth will go to the team that's undefeated or has one loss at the end of the season regardless of conference. A 1 loss AAC or MWC team will not get in over an undefeated MAC or CUSA team.

There is no support for this conclusion unless, as I've seen some Pollyanna Marshall fans actually do, you want to argue that history has no bearing on the future... which is like arguing that you should play the stock market without any reference for past performance. Silly.

Could what you're saying happen in one given season? Sure. Anything can happen, and sometimes even things that have never happened before in history.

But in the quest to give one's conference the optimal opportunity to, season after season after season, have the same likelihood of getting the BCS berth as these other conferences, you have to take a sober look at what numbers tell you about the schools involved (not conferences, per se, since conference memberships have changed), and make adjustments that boost that likelihood.

This is, essentially, the same model as what serendipitously occurred for the MAC this past season... you want to have the two best possible schools vying against each other in that final game so that that winner is pushed higher.

(This is not the Big 12 situation. Take Texas and Oklahoma out of that conference, and maybe then it would be the more similar... their presence skews that whole discussion.)

(04-12-2013 11:34 AM)mufanatehc Wrote:  The berth will go to the team that's undefeated or has one loss at the end of the season regardless of conference. A 1 loss AAC or MWC team will not get in over an undefeated MAC or CUSA team.

I am skeptical on this claim ~ I can easily imagine a scenario where a two loss AAC team takes it over a one loss MAC team, for instance ~ but more to the point, an undefeated American or Mountain West team will beat out an undefeated MAC or CUSA team, a 1 loss American or Mountain West team will beat out a 1 loss MAC or CUSA team, and a two loss American or Mountain West team will beat out a two loss MAC or CUSA team.

What changes is removing the ranking threshold. The relative positining to a collection of two loss G5 champions is immaterial under the current system, since in that case under the current system nobody gets in. The current system requires a G5 school with bowl busting ambitions to go for broke on an undefeated season. The new system implies that we will indeed sometimes have a choice for G5 school among two-loss schools.

Your hypothesis makes no since. at all.

If a MAC or CUSA team wants to increase their strength of schedule then they can do that in September. The MWC and AAC are not "poised to dominate" as you claim. There has never been a smaller gap between those two conferences and the MAC as there is now. There is NO team in either the MAC or CUSA that can give enough of a boost to make a difference.

It is clear now more than ever that conference affiliation only matters in regards to being in the Rich 5 or the Poor 5. We're in the Poor 5, beyond that it doesn't matter which ghetto we live in.

(04-12-2013 11:34 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  Its only a 6 million dollar the bonus for having a BCS berth against the 16 million a G5 conference will receive for finishing last.

The BCS revenue itself is going to be almost flat. (See repost at bottom of this.)

Bowl money, then, becomes the big prize...

From the Chicago Tribune

Quote:NIU officials are somewhat reluctant to talk specifics, saying it's too early, but one administrator has said the university experienced a 19 to 25 percent increase in applications during a brief period after Northern was chosen for the Orange Bowl. And although NIU won't receive all of the Orange Bowl's $12 million payout, the school stands to collect a sizable chunk of it.

(04-12-2013 11:34 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  The MAC has a scheduling agreement in place....with the Big Ten. The real difference between the computer ratings of the MAC and CUSA 2.0 was largely the result of a soft Big Ten in recent years. With the Big Ten set to explode that will help the MAC's computer numbers.

This proposal wouldn't disturb that agreement, insofar as I'm aware. "Set to explode" is a convenient assessment and, of course, subjective.


========================================

Quote:Copied and pasted from the Idaho AD's newsletter to an Idaho forum:

Quote:As I mentioned yesterday when we accepted the Sun Belt Conference's invitation as a football-only member, we remain committed to joining the Big Sky Conference in all other sports starting in 2014.

Our coaches are excited to renew old rivalries and participate in a geographically friendly conference that will reduce travel costs and create more favorable travel scenarios for our student-athletes. Plus, the Big Sky Conference is going to be a very competitive conference for golf, tennis, volleyball, soccer, basketball, track and field, and cross country. Swimming and diving most likely will remain in the WAC as an affiliate member.

Yesterday, I mentioned other repercussions of maintaining FBS status. Let me explain. The FBS system in now comprised of 10 conferences, five of which constitute the Bowl Championship Subdivision (BCS), and five other conferences which are considered the “Group of Five” or the non-Automatic Qualifying Conferences into the BCS bowl games.

The 10 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) Conferences

BCS Conferences
PAC-12
Big 10
Big 12
ACC
SEC
Non-AQ
Mountain West
Mid-American
Conference USA
Sun Belt
Big East

As indicated above, the Sun Belt is a one of the members of these non-AQ conferences. With the recent adoption of the new four-team playoff system by the BCS, significantly more revenue (from the current $120 million to $420 million) will be infused into the BCS system. While the BCS conferences will still capture in excess of 71 percent of this total revenue, the 29 percent to be distributed to the non-AQ conferences is significant. Over the next four years, the amount of revenue distributed to the five non-AQ conferences will be as follows:

2014


2015


2016


2017

$82,000,000


$87,000,000


$90,000,000


$92,500,000

Of the approximately $82 million that will be distributed and divided among the five non-AQ conferences, $60 million will be allocated to the non-AQ conferences equally. Equally means that each conference will receive $1 million for each of the football schools in its conference. So for 2014, the Sun Belt will receive $12 million ($1 million x 12 football schools) to be divided amongst its members. The remaining $22 million from the total $82 million allocation will be distributed based on the following formula:

Conference Rank


Amount

1


$6.4 million

2


$5.4 million

3


$4.4 million

4


$3.4 million

5


$2.4 million

As you can see, conference revenue from being in an FBS conference is significant and most likely will influence other Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) schools to look at opportunities to join an FBS conference. As you know, the Sun Belt also announced that two premier FCS schools (Appalachian State and Georgia Southern) also will be joining its conference. The Big Sky is currently an FCS conference for football.

I predict that in the next 3-5 years you will see other FCS programs move to the FBS level and possibly form another FBS football league.

P.S. Thanks to everyone who helped us make improvements to the Kibbie Dome! Hopefully you read the quotes from Sun Belt Commissioner Karl Benson about how our renovated Kibbie Dome was recognized by the Sun Belt in its decision to invite us as football-only member.

What does this mean?

This essentially means that (a) the fight appears to be over and (b) the socialists won.

The difference between revenue from being in the top-rated conference and the bottom-rated conference is $4 million... not per school... per conference.

If you're a school in the 2nd-rated with 12 members... maybe like C-TBN... you get ~$500K, as opposed to being one of 14 in the 4th-rated... maybe like C-USA... where you'd get ~$250K.

So... the difference between being in C-TBN and C-USA is likely to be in that neighborhood.

And... what we know now is that the big money lies practically solely in getting that BCS berth.

I'm surprised that MWC and C-TBN didn't do more to separate themselves from the other three conferences... for those wishing to make lemonade out of our lemon, we at least avoided the worst possible scenario here... ie, that the distribution structure somehow predominantly ended up funneling money to C-TBN and MWC, and yet without us being invited to that party.

(04-12-2013 11:57 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  The only possible benefit I could see for a MAC-CUSA alliance is if the two conferences played their 12th game against each other on the final weekend of November. I don't know how that would work out for rivalry games like Ohio-Marshall.

This way a selection could be made a week in advance and pit #1 CUSA vs. #1 MAC and so forth down the line. It could help for scheduling and make that final weekend more interesting.

Getting a very strong vibe that you didn't bother to look at the PPT. If you believe that, you really ought to be able to see the reasonableness of what's proposed there.

(04-12-2013 11:34 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  The MAC has a scheduling agreement in place....with the Big Ten.

Maybe I am just getting old, but I do not recall any formal scheduling agreement between the MAC and Big Ten. Can you point to a link or anything of substance that supports this?

(04-12-2013 12:33 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 11:34 AM)mufanatehc Wrote:  The berth will go to the team that's undefeated or has one loss at the end of the season regardless of conference. A 1 loss AAC or MWC team will not get in over an undefeated MAC or CUSA team.

I am skeptical on this claim ~ I can easily imagine a scenario where a two loss AAC team takes it over a one loss MAC team, for instance ~ but more to the point, an undefeated American or Mountain West team will beat out an undefeated MAC or CUSA team, a 1 loss American or Mountain West team will beat out a 1 loss MAC or CUSA team, and a two loss American or Mountain West team will beat out a two loss MAC or CUSA team.

What changes is removing the ranking threshold. The relative positining to a collection of two loss G5 champions is immaterial under the current system, since in that case under the current system nobody gets in. The current system requires a G5 school with bowl busting ambitions to go for broke on an undefeated season. The new system implies that we will indeed sometimes have a choice for G5 school among two-loss schools.

MAC 1 loss team NIU got in over MWC 2 loss Boise this past season.

And unless there is an absolutely god awful year, there should be at least one or two ranked teams from the G5 leagues available, and the higher ranked team will in all likelihood get the nod.

I am not for this alliance for many reasons, the most basic one being scheduling feasibility. If the alliance were in place you would have division winners in both leagues playing 12 regular season games, then their own conference championship game. Then the MAC and C-USA champs would square off in game 14 to determine the "alliance" champ. #1 there's not time on the calendar to fit all of those games in. #2 the alliance finalists would play 15 games including whatever bowl they go to. That's way too many. I can understand that many games in FCS when they're playing an elimination tournament for a national championship but not for this. Most years these teams would still wind up in the Go Daddy Bowl or an equivalent.

(04-12-2013 01:28 PM)NIU1981 Wrote:  I am not for this alliance for many reasons, the most basic one being scheduling feasibility. If the alliance were in place you would have division winners in both leagues playing 12 regular season games, then their own conference championship game. Then the MAC and C-USA champs would square off in game 14 to determine the "alliance" champ. #1 there's not time on the calendar to fit all of those games in. #2 the alliance finalists would play 15 games including whatever bowl they go to. That's way too many. I can understand that many games in FCS when they're playing an elimination tournament for a national championship but not for this. Most years these teams would still wind up in the Go Daddy Bowl or an equivalent.

The only practicable way to do it under current NCAA rules would be regular season week 12, #1 v #1 and so on. For the road teams, you have a road game against you don't know who until previous Saturday, maybe in West Virginia or Kentucky but maybe in Florida or Texas.

Plus no prospect of getting the best matchups on ESPN/ESPN2 since ESPN would still want to schedule them mid-week.

Much better to have in-conference rivalry matchups in week 12, and have the best possible chances of having two strong teams in the CCG so that whomever wins the CCG, the odds are strong that the conference comes out ahead.

(04-12-2013 01:28 PM)NIU1981 Wrote:  I am not for this alliance for many reasons, the most basic one being scheduling feasibility. If the alliance were in place you would have division winners in both leagues playing 12 regular season games, then their own conference championship game. Then the MAC and C-USA champs would square off in game 14 to determine the "alliance" champ. #1 there's not time on the calendar to fit all of those games in. #2 the alliance finalists would play 15 games including whatever bowl they go to. That's way too many. I can understand that many games in FCS when they're playing an elimination tournament for a national championship but not for this. Most years these teams would still wind up in the Go Daddy Bowl or an equivalent.

This is the key reason why the MWC/CUSA alliance failed to launch

(04-12-2013 01:28 PM)NIU1981 Wrote:  I am not for this alliance for many reasons, the most basic one being scheduling feasibility. If the alliance were in place you would have division winners in both leagues playing 12 regular season games, then their own conference championship game. Then the MAC and C-USA champs would square off in game 14 to determine the "alliance" champ. #1 there's not time on the calendar to fit all of those games in. #2 the alliance finalists would play 15 games including whatever bowl they go to. That's way too many. I can understand that many games in FCS when they're playing an elimination tournament for a national championship but not for this. Most years these teams would still wind up in the Go Daddy Bowl or an equivalent.

Guys... really... this is yet another example of why you have to watch the PPT before you can offer a coherent response. Not trying to embarrass anyone. It's easy enough to accelerate through using the FF button at the bottom.

(04-12-2013 02:57 PM)mufanatehc Wrote:  This is the key reason why the MWC/CUSA alliance failed to launch

This is another key reason why... one should never rely on another internet poster to relay substantiated information.

Not only was the "key reason" never reported, the exact parameters of the alliance itself was never reported... just assurance from Thompson and Banowsky that everyone was on-board, that it would be profitable, and some speculation about how it might be structured.

(If I missed something, certainly correct me and I'll be happy to say how wrong I was. But I've kept my thumb on the pulse of this issue for as long as it's been an issue, so if so, I'll be stunned and humbled.)

I watched it.

First: I don't agree with the intial premise that somehow the MWC or AAC wold have an advantage over a MAC champ in getting a BCS invite. If you schedule and beat BCS programs - and then run your conference, you'll likely be the invite. If two schools in the non-BCS run the table, it comes down to SOS.

Second: SOS wouldn't necessarally be improved and may actually be reduced. Even bad/mediocre BCS programs boost your SOS more than playing 2-3 more "gang of 5" schools would. I still don't see the advantage of three weeks vs C-USA vs using those weeks to schedule Big10 or other major programs. These 2 playoff weeks don't come from nowhere.

I don't want to schedule 2 more schools in Sagarin's (or BCS's) 70s and 80s - by giving up a chance to play a 40 and a 50.

(04-12-2013 03:55 PM)nert Wrote:  I watched it.

First: I don't agree with the intial premise that somehow the MWC or AAC wold have an advantage over a MAC champ in getting a BCS invite. If you schedule and beat BCS programs - and then run your conference, you'll likely be the invite. If two schools in the non-BCS run the table, it comes down to SOS.

Second: SOS wouldn't necessarally be improved and may actually be reduced. Even bad/mediocre BCS programs boost your SOS more than playing 2-3 more "gang of 5" schools would. I still don't see the advantage of three weeks vs C-USA vs using those weeks to schedule Big10 or other major programs. These 2 playoff weeks don't come from nowhere.

I don't want to schedule 2 more schools in Sagarin's (or BCS's) 70s and 80s - by giving up a chance to play a 40 and a 50.

Pardon the observation, but it sounds like you've made some presumptions in order to support being dismissive, but I promise you, I've done the math.

Historically... ie, looking at the last 5 years, chosen so that we compensate for outliers... for the schools of the Go5 conferences...

the AAC schools clearly outperform the MWC (average Sagarin rank difference ~15)...

the MWC schools outperform the MAC by quite a margin(average Sagarin rank difference ~25)...

the MAC outperforms CUSA by a slight margin(average Sagarin rank difference ~5)...

and CUSA clearly outperforms SB(average Sagarin rank difference ~10).

As to your second assertion, doing the math reveals that had Northern Illinois won out in this alliance format, no matter which two of their four non-conference games you substitute, they would have ended up having played schools with a higher average rating.

(04-12-2013 03:12 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Guys... really... this is yet another example of why you have to watch the PPT before you can offer a coherent response. Not trying to embarrass anyone. It's easy enough to accelerate through using the FF button at the bottom.

Though not taking on the proposal in the PPT slide directly could be seen as a way to avoid embarassing whoever it was that put that nonsense together.

(04-12-2013 06:04 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  [quote='nert' pid='9228437' dateline='1365800153']
Historically... ie, looking at the last 5 years, chosen so that we compensate for outliers... for the schools of the Go5 conferences...

the AAC schools clearly outperform the MWC (average Sagarin rank difference ~15)...

Yea but they got this sweet little trump card called Boise...

Quote:the MWC schools outperform the MAC by quite a margin(average Sagarin rank difference ~25)...

The last five years is *not* a good sample for this. The MAC was pretty bad from 2006-2010... By thier historical standards. Usually the MAC can produce either a top 15 or two top 25 teams at some point in the season if not the final polls.

Quote:the MAC outperforms CUSA by a slight margin(average Sagarin rank difference ~5)...

and CUSA clearly outperforms SB(average Sagarin rank difference ~10).

Here is where the bunk is.... The sargins ratings of the remaining CUA members were boosted by playing the teams good enough to get into the AAC.

Really aside from southern Miss what football power remains in the belt? Houston, UCF, Tulsa, and ECU was the upper tier of that conference.

(04-12-2013 03:55 PM)nert Wrote:  First: I don't agree with the intial premise that somehow the MWC or AAC wold have an advantage over a MAC champ in getting a BCS invite. If you schedule and beat BCS programs - and then run your conference, you'll likely be the invite. If two schools in the non-BCS run the table, it comes down to SOS.

And if the OOC strength of schedule is roughly equal, the SOS advantage for running your conference goes to either the American or the Mountain West.

So, in other words, the Mountain West and the American clearly have an advantage over the MAC and CUSA.

However (1) its an advantage, its not an stranglehold ~ there is every reason to believe that either the MAC or the CUSA might on occasion produce the G5 rep, and therefore creating a tournament structure in the hopes that the favorites will not be upset (since the #8 through #5 schools going in are unlikely to be the G5 rep should they stage upsets and win the tournament is an over-reaction to that clear advantage and ...

... (2) the proposed system in the OP is clearly inviting an open violation of NCAA rules, since it assumes that the two conferences can between themselves decide on a joint tournament championship games as a 13th playing date, when in reality the rule states:

Quote: 17.9.5.2
Annual Exemptions. [FBS/FCS]
The maximum number of football contests shall exclude the following: (Revised: 10/28/10) ...
© Twelve-Member Conference Championship Game. [FBS/FCS] A conference championship game between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two divisions (of six or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division;

Quite clearly, the two surviving member of the original eight will only be allowed to compete provided that they happen to come from two different divisions of the same conference. If they come from the same divisions of the same conference or from the two different conferences, the CCG will have to be canceled, since otherwise it would fail to quality for the Bylaw 17.9.5.2© exception.

And worst of all: (3) the alliance as proposed means that even with eight conference games rather than nine, there are only two free dates in which to schedule games other than conference and scheduling alliance games. Half of the OOC games are to be sacrificed to this ramshackle affair, which was designed without, it seems, actually reading the applicable NCAA Bylaw.