I'm bored...my team lost badly on Sun...and this is the conference realignment board. I'm settling in for a long football season while our coach teaches our institution how to win over the long haul.

So. I lurk on these boards often. I'm okay with the Eastern-half-of-the-USA bias. I'm okay with the MWC being lesser than it was when Utah and TCU were in the conference. I think AAC fans are being a bit optimistic when they say they'll extend invites to 6 MWC schools, and that's that.

If we're really gonna make a true coast-to-coaster, we need to make it a long-term viable solution and not a marriage of convenience doomed to crumble after 3 years (see WAC, mid 1990s). A balance of institutions and regionality (TV markets and recruitability) would be most important.

I see that 18 schools are required. Twelve is too small. Fourteen or sixteen isn't quite enough. Twenty is too many. With 18 schools, you could create 2 divisions of 9 (or 3 divisions of 6, although that gets messy). In a perfect world, 9-team conferences are best, closely followed by 12-team conferences. But I digress....

Nine schools in each division lends itself to the magic number of eight division games and one crossover game -- leaving 3 OOC matchups. I don't care about more crossover games, and I don't think recruits care about playing every school (in FB) during their 5-yr careers. Talkin' regionality here.

"So, All Rams, what are the schools?" Nine from each of the MWC and AAC, clustered in regional threes:

I Luv Cali Division
San Diego State
Fresno State
UNLV

Mountains R Us Division
New Mexico
Air Force
Colorado State

C-USA No More Division
Tulsa
Southern Methodist
Houston

The Gulf Is Great Division
Tulane
Central Florida
South Florida

I Don't Have a Name for This Division
Cincinnati
Memphis
East Carolina

Big City Division
Temple
Connecticut
Naval Academy

Tulane?! Yes, Tulane. I'm starting to drink the green Kool-Aid of their followers. TV thinks the NOLA market is worth the invite, and their academics are second to none in this conference.

Colorado State?! Yes, CSU. It's a major university with very good academics and very good athletics (FB aside over the past 8 years). Our leadership won't be left out of any conference movement. Remember who called a certain meeting at an airport in the late 90s?

New Mexico?! They have great hoops (NCAA tourney aside), and they have a passionate fanbase. Their overall athletics are very good (FB excepted). And they're a very good academic school.

Personally, I'm not crazy about Tulsa or SMU (no offense Golden Hurricanes or Ponies), and they fit well in the overall scheme. They're very good academic institutions, and we're gonna luv that Dallas metroplex TV and recruiting.

Air Force and Navy?! You betcha, we're gonna include the include-able service academies. AFA has no place to park their non-FB sports like Navy does.

Meh, it's worth a shot. Like I said, I'm bored, and this is gonna be another long FB season. I don't intend to insult the MWC-AAC schools I didn't include. This one Ram's opinion.

Thanks for giving this post 30 seconds that you'll never get back.

I would not argue with that but you might as well add in Boise State and Wyoming...

Boise should be in

BYU
Boise
UNLV
SDSU
Fresno
New Mexico
Colorado State
Air Force (Football Only)

Cincinnati
Memphis
Houston
USF
UCF
UCONN
Temple
Navy (Football Only)

This is the proper way to do it.

I do think we will eventually see a blending of these schools within the AAC moniker when the new division comes out. Personally I think it works out better with a 20 team conference that can be split into 4 divisions of 5. Four divisions of four, as I have looked at in my scenarios, might leave too much long distance travel for these schools. Moving to 20 teams instead would help with travel issues, even in other sports.

I think the Service Academies will end up bowing out due to the whole stipend issue. That is just an immovable object for them. They can remain down in the next division down without losing any of the big opponents that they regularly schedule.

(09-05-2013 05:39 PM)RebelRobert Wrote:  BYU
Boise
UNLV
SDSU
Fresno
New Mexico
Colorado State
Air Force (Football Only)

Cincinnati
Memphis
Houston
USF
UCF
UCONN
Temple
Navy (Football Only)

This is the proper way to do it.

So Houston doesn't get an opponent within 1000 miles? Not gunna fly.

The OP set up makes more sense. I wont quibble over which 6 MW teams he selected. I think Boise should be included. I also think SMU needs to be in there. I'd like to keep at least one of Tulsa and Tulane. I also think its foolish to leave out ECU.

The problem with adding more than 6 MW schools is that it makes the divisions impossible and it eliminates a better eastern school. I mean really....we have room for Colorado St and New Mexico, but not ECU? Nothing against those MW schools, I just think it has to make sense. I think the MW-6 + 3AAC is the way to build the best western division under the present rules.

Truthfully, what we really need to make this work is a rule change. Currently, conferences that divide into divisions must play a complete round robin within that division. If the NCAA allowed conferences over 16 to simply play 5 games in their division and 3 crossover games as long as the rotation through the opponents was continuous, then a 20 team conference would work beautifully.

WEST

BYU
Boise
SDSU
Fresno
UNLV
AF
New Mexico
Houston
SMU
Tulsa

EAST

UConn
Cinci
Temple
Navy
UCF
USF
ECU
S Miss
Memphis
Tulane

8 game conference schedule

**play 5 games in division--whoever you don't play this year, you must play next year)

**3 crossover games (must cycle evenly through cross division play, must play everyone once before repeating a cross division opponent).

**The one downside is that certain rivalry games would be missed once every 3 years. Perhaps a "rivalry" exception could be utilized if the conferences played 9 game schedules instead of 8 game schedules. Maybe the NCAA could grant "waivers" based upon traditional games. Im sure they could come up with something.

Effectively, a schedule like this is what you end up with in a large conference where there are no divisions---so its dumb that its not allowed in divisional play. The key is that it must be a regular continuous rotation where the conference cant aid teams by purposely giving them soft schedules. I think such a rule could pass the NCAA. If D-4 happens and 15-25 selected mid-majors get to play in D-4, a large nationwide mid-major conference with a single auto-bid might be the final solution.

(09-05-2013 05:39 PM)RebelRobert Wrote:  BYU
Boise
UNLV
SDSU
Fresno
New Mexico
Colorado State
Air Force (Football Only)

Cincinnati
Memphis
Houston
USF
UCF
UCONN
Temple
Navy (Football Only)

This is the proper way to do it.

ECU absolutely belongs over Navy , AF, NM ,Colorado ST. and Temple .

West
Boise State
San Diego State
UNLV
BYU (Fresno State or if they don't join)
Colorado State

South
Houston
SMU
UTEP (better than Tulsa in regards to attendance numbers)
New Mexico ( might end up elsewhere)
ULL

East
USF
UCF
Arkansas State
Tulane
Southern Miss

North
UConn
ECU
Temple
Cincinnati
Memphis


Now for this kind of a conference, I weighed much more heavily on product on the field for some choices. That is going to matter quite a bit for this conference. Also, attendance issues matter.

In the West, I think the choices are pretty obvious. Doubling up in California isn't a bad thing but getting UNLV is a good choice as well as I think their local following will rise as they rise in the conference ranks. With a new stadium, they shouldn't be a hindrance on the conference average attendance numbers.

In the South, most folks will probably think ULL is a surprise. I just lived there and saw first hand how excited people were about the football program. I look at past attendance there but I also lend credence to locals on these boards that say their attendance numbers will rise. That stadium looks like a really big high school stadium that you might find somewhere in Texas. If they make it look like a proper modern college stadium then I think the folks there will show everyone what a sleeper product the Cajuns are. Since they are farther west, I put them with the West and Tulane with the East. Louisiana is hot stuff when it comes to recruiting. This conference would not suffer at all for doubling up in that State.

In the East, the surprise there is Arky State. They got some real good things going on there and I think they are another product of the future to get a hold of now. They are a strong performer that can help out the ratings of the conference. You could put them in the South instead of ULL but I figured on splitting the Louisiana schools in order to split up the visibility of other schools in that State.

In the North, I put Memphis and ECU because quite frankly the northern geographical area is really sparse for schools at this tier that have good enough attendance or even the possibility of achieving quality attendance numbers such as Memphis. ECU will help beef up that division in football too. Having them be a major brand of this conference is pretty important.

That is the line up I would go with. I would use an 8 game schedule. Four games in division, one game in each other division and then perhaps one protected rivalry game. You could also go with a 9 game schedule and play four games in division and then have a three year rotation where each year you play every team in one other division. That one though is going to be more costly in terms of travel AND it does not tie together the entire conference in terms of strength of schedule ratings.

(09-05-2013 06:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  West
Boise State
San Diego State
UNLV
BYU (Fresno State or if they don't join)
Colorado State

South
Houston
SMU
UTEP (better than Tulsa in regards to attendance numbers)
New Mexico ( might end up elsewhere)
ULL

East
USF
UCF
Arkansas State
Tulane
Southern Miss

North
UConn
ECU
Temple
Cincinnati
Memphis


Now for this kind of a conference, I weighed much more heavily on product on the field for some choices. That is going to matter quite a bit for this conference. Also, attendance issues matter.

In the West, I think the choices are pretty obvious. Doubling up in California isn't a bad thing but getting UNLV is a good choice as well as I think their local following will rise as they rise in the conference ranks. With a new stadium, they shouldn't be a hindrance on the conference average attendance numbers.

In the South, most folks will probably think ULL is a surprise. I just lived there and saw first hand how excited people were about the football program. I look at past attendance there but I also lend credence to locals on these boards that say their attendance numbers will rise. That stadium looks like a really big high school stadium that you might find somewhere in Texas. If they make it look like a proper modern college stadium then I think the folks there will show everyone what a sleeper product the Cajuns are. Since they are farther west, I put them with the West and Tulane with the East. Louisiana is hot stuff when it comes to recruiting. This conference would not suffer at all for doubling up in that State.

In the East, the surprise there is Arky State. They got some real good things going on there and I think they are another product of the future to get a hold of now. They are a strong performer that can help out the ratings of the conference. You could put them in the South instead of ULL but I figured on splitting the Louisiana schools in order to split up the visibility of other schools in that State.

In the North, I put Memphis and ECU because quite frankly the northern geographical area is really sparse for schools at this tier that have good enough attendance or even the possibility of achieving quality attendance numbers such as Memphis. ECU will help beef up that division in football too. Having them be a major brand of this conference is pretty important.

That is the line up I would go with. I would use an 8 game schedule. Four games in division, one game in each other division and then perhaps one protected rivalry game. You could also go with a 9 game schedule and play four games in division and then have a three year rotation where each year you play every team in one other division. That one though is going to be more costly in terms of travel AND it does not tie together the entire conference in terms of strength of schedule ratings.

Basically, you traded Navy and Air Force for ULL and Arky St. I don't think that's likely. The schools you chose have potential, but I don't see them making it in over more established programs like Navy and AF.

If this conference wants to participate at the top division level, they will have to pay stipends. That means Navy and Air Force are a no go. My choice of those schools has nothing to do with their comparison to Navy and Air Force.

(09-05-2013 05:39 PM)RebelRobert Wrote:  BYU
Boise
UNLV
SDSU
Fresno
New Mexico
Colorado State
Air Force (Football Only)

Cincinnati
Memphis
Houston
USF
UCF
UCONN
Temple
Navy (Football Only)

This is the proper way to do it.

if we can't get a P5 invite, I'd take this

I do not believe there will be any drastic change with a new football division or subdivision... it'll all be changes at the governance level and the voting power of the FBS schools/conferences.

That said, I do not believe any changes would ever leave the Academies behind... Navy has been playing the elite since 1879, Army since 1890, and wherever they go, so too will youngin' Air Force (1955); no one will say no to the people who defend our nation - that would be a bad publicity moment for whatever it is the powers that be want to form.

Leaving them behind in the lower division is not leaving them behind. They will still have every single scheduled game that they have had previously. To say that them not being in the top division is them being "left behind" and that the country should be angry about that, that just seems extremely irresponsible and misleading.

Why do the Academies need to be in that division? Is that what they are for? They have a much different mission than these Universities when it comes to the purpose of those teams.

(09-05-2013 08:00 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  If this conference wants to participate at the top division level, they will have to pay stipends. That means Navy and Air Force are a no go. My choice of those schools has nothing to do with their comparison to Navy and Air Force.

Im not so sure about that. Every Air Force and Naval cadet is paid a salary by the military---I doubt a stipend would be hard for those schools to swallow. Its my opinion that Navy and Air Force are among the most likely schools that the P-5 will want included in a future Division 4.

(09-05-2013 08:19 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Leaving them behind in the lower division is not leaving them behind. They will still have every single scheduled game that they have had previously. To say that them not being in the top division is them being "left behind" and that the country should be angry about that, that just seems extremely irresponsible and misleading.

Why do the Academies need to be in that division? Is that what they are for? They have a much different mission than these Universities when it comes to the purpose of those teams.

Incorrect. Leaving them behind is leaving them behind. Any football program relegated to the "new FCS" is getting a death sentence. Oh, they might still exist, but they will exist in an FCS-like world where 10-15K attendance is awesome and television coverage is non-existent. It will effectively be the death of these programs as we know them.

(09-05-2013 08:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-05-2013 08:19 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Leaving them behind in the lower division is not leaving them behind. They will still have every single scheduled game that they have had previously. To say that them not being in the top division is them being "left behind" and that the country should be angry about that, that just seems extremely irresponsible and misleading.

Why do the Academies need to be in that division? Is that what they are for? They have a much different mission than these Universities when it comes to the purpose of those teams.

Incorrect. Leaving them behind is leaving them behind. Any football program relegated to the "new FCS" is getting a death sentence. Oh, they might still exist, but they will exist in an FCS-like world where 10-15K attendance is awesome and television coverage is non-existent. It will effectively be the death of these programs as we know them.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to such extreme thinking.

Just say no to the coast-to-coast monstrosity.

(09-05-2013 08:27 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-05-2013 08:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-05-2013 08:19 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Leaving them behind in the lower division is not leaving them behind. They will still have every single scheduled game that they have had previously. To say that them not being in the top division is them being "left behind" and that the country should be angry about that, that just seems extremely irresponsible and misleading.

Why do the Academies need to be in that division? Is that what they are for? They have a much different mission than these Universities when it comes to the purpose of those teams.

Incorrect. Leaving them behind is leaving them behind. Any football program relegated to the "new FCS" is getting a death sentence. Oh, they might still exist, but they will exist in an FCS-like world where 10-15K attendance is awesome and television coverage is non-existent. It will effectively be the death of these programs as we know them.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to such extreme thinking.

Thats fair. Just remember that a lot of former D1 schools thought the same in 1978. They were under the impression they would get more television exposure and increased coverage when they agreed to their own playoff during the last split. The American public cares a great deal about competition at the top level of football. However, they just dont seem to care about any other football division. Even the also ran bowls draw better ratings and more interest than the FCS championship game. I would not be surprised if just two or 3 G5 bowls could combine to match the cumulative TV audience of the entire FCS playoff.

(09-05-2013 08:27 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(09-05-2013 08:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-05-2013 08:19 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Leaving them behind in the lower division is not leaving them behind. They will still have every single scheduled game that they have had previously. To say that them not being in the top division is them being "left behind" and that the country should be angry about that, that just seems extremely irresponsible and misleading.

Why do the Academies need to be in that division? Is that what they are for? They have a much different mission than these Universities when it comes to the purpose of those teams.

Incorrect. Leaving them behind is leaving them behind. Any football program relegated to the "new FCS" is getting a death sentence. Oh, they might still exist, but they will exist in an FCS-like world where 10-15K attendance is awesome and television coverage is non-existent. It will effectively be the death of these programs as we know them.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to such extreme thinking.

You make an excellent point about the stipend issue being too much for the academies to deal with.

It has been my thought for the while but if the AAC is going to try a western expansion it might be better of focusing on the Front Range schools of Wyoming, New Mexico and Colorado State this time around instead of going all the way to the Pacific with SDSU and Boise State.

The reason being is the travel from the Front Range to the Texas schools of the AAC is not too difficult to manage and you are pulling in states with little to no power conference representation at the moment. In fact you could throw in Air Force and go to 16 that way if you are the AAC.

AAC West: Wyoming, Col St, Air Force, New Mexico, Tulsa, Houston, SMU, Tulane

AAC East: UConn, Temple, Navy, Cincinnati, Memphis, East Carolina, USF, UCF

Go to 14 all sports with AFA and Navy playing FB only.....play a limited number of crossover games in olympic sports to minimize travel costs.

The basketball played in both the West and East divisions of the AAC would be excellent plus the conference legitimately stretches 3 timezones which would be very attractive for TV $$$.

(09-05-2013 07:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-05-2013 06:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  West
Boise State
San Diego State
UNLV
BYU (Fresno State or if they don't join)
Colorado State

South
Houston
SMU
UTEP (better than Tulsa in regards to attendance numbers)
New Mexico ( might end up elsewhere)
ULL

East
USF
UCF
Arkansas State
Tulane
Southern Miss

North
UConn
ECU
Temple
Cincinnati
Memphis


Now for this kind of a conference, I weighed much more heavily on product on the field for some choices. That is going to matter quite a bit for this conference. Also, attendance issues matter.

In the West, I think the choices are pretty obvious. Doubling up in California isn't a bad thing but getting UNLV is a good choice as well as I think their local following will rise as they rise in the conference ranks. With a new stadium, they shouldn't be a hindrance on the conference average attendance numbers.

In the South, most folks will probably think ULL is a surprise. I just lived there and saw first hand how excited people were about the football program. I look at past attendance there but I also lend credence to locals on these boards that say their attendance numbers will rise. That stadium looks like a really big high school stadium that you might find somewhere in Texas. If they make it look like a proper modern college stadium then I think the folks there will show everyone what a sleeper product the Cajuns are. Since they are farther west, I put them with the West and Tulane with the East. Louisiana is hot stuff when it comes to recruiting. This conference would not suffer at all for doubling up in that State.

In the East, the surprise there is Arky State. They got some real good things going on there and I think they are another product of the future to get a hold of now. They are a strong performer that can help out the ratings of the conference. You could put them in the South instead of ULL but I figured on splitting the Louisiana schools in order to split up the visibility of other schools in that State.

In the North, I put Memphis and ECU because quite frankly the northern geographical area is really sparse for schools at this tier that have good enough attendance or even the possibility of achieving quality attendance numbers such as Memphis. ECU will help beef up that division in football too. Having them be a major brand of this conference is pretty important.

That is the line up I would go with. I would use an 8 game schedule. Four games in division, one game in each other division and then perhaps one protected rivalry game. You could also go with a 9 game schedule and play four games in division and then have a three year rotation where each year you play every team in one other division. That one though is going to be more costly in terms of travel AND it does not tie together the entire conference in terms of strength of schedule ratings.

Basically, you traded Navy and Air Force for ULL and Arky St. I don't think that's likely. The schools you chose have potential, but I don't see them making it in over more established programs like Navy and AF.

Arkansas State Has huge potential! 1. They are in a 2 team state that's not that unified behind the 1 other team. #2 Memphis and little rock markets. 20-6 in last 2 years. Coaches: Hugh freeze( now ole miss), Gus Malzahn(now auburn) now have Bryan Harsin just ask Boise how good he was as a OC!

This is a team to keep an eye on. ULL is a good one too.