(11-09-2013 05:20 AM)Wadszip Wrote:  I agree with Optimist, when he said there are only a couple of schools in the league that are trying to improve their programs. I also agree with Dr. Torch's list of schools that are trying, that are at status quo and the ones that are just along for the ride.

I also completely disagree with the whole concept that ESPN despises the MAC. ESPN is going with the money ... and yes, the MAC has made them money. The MAC is, as has been discussed, is good that it is a bunch of like schools that are in close proximity. For ESPN, that is a bad thing. ESPN wants to expand markets when bidding on a product.

With that said (and I know there will be a ton of political pressure that would need to be overcome), but instead of the 4-5 schools that realistically would fight for a spot in the AAC, why not join together and try to create a new league?

1. Akron
2. Ohio
3. NIU
4. Buffalo
5. Toledo

That's a solid core of five schools that are in the group of schools wanting to move on. Plus, four are in large media markets. OU doesn't have the TV market, but with all the joking of flagship, etc., nobody can deny that Ohio does have a brand as big as any in the current MAC, and an administration that is striving to build it even more through athletics.

Add
6. UMass (partial member) to that group. Another school that

You now need 6 more (have to have a football championship game.

Could that sway Cincinnati, Temple and UConn from the AAC? The easy answer is no. But if you look deeper, it actually may be a better scenario for all three when you look at what the AAC is about to become.

For basketball, it would look like this:
1. UConn
2. Cincinnati
3. Temple
4. UMass
5. Akron
6. Ohio
7. Toledo
8. Buffalo
9. Northern Illinois

Akron and OU have been two of the only MAC schools who have even been in the at-large conversation recently. Push them down to the No. 5 and 6 spot in a league, with Cincy, Temple and UConn, and it's easily a 3-4 bid league.

In football, it'll be:
1. Cincinnati
2. Northern Illinois
3. Toledo
4. UConn
5. Ohio
6. Temple
7. Buffalo
8. Akron
9. UMass

Is that as great group, no. But is that just as strong as the future AAC? Probably, especially when you consider proximity (for the minor sports).

The biggest factor, outside of proximity, would be TV markets. You'd have:
1. NIU: No. 3 Chicago. While NIU has direct competition, it's Northwestern, an elite private school.
2. Temple: No. 4 Philadelphia. No direct competition.
3. UMass: No. 7 Boston. While not directly Boston, it's the flagship state school in a big state that only BCS competition is a small, Catholic school.
4. Akron: No. 17 Cleveland. No direct competition.
5. UConn: No. 30 Hartford ... plus it's in the middle of the NY-Boston megalopolis.
6. Cincinnati: No. 34 Cincinnati. No direct competition.
7. Buffalo: No. 51 Buffalo. No direct competition.
8. Toledo: No. 73. No direct competition.
9. Ohio: No market, but we joke about it being a flagship or not. It's still a school with a large fan base in a big state. It's no worse overall than say East Carolina ... and OU brings better academics. ... and a better overall football/basketball mix.

With all that said, you would want to get it to 12 to get a championship game for football. What does that leave?

Well, that's where some of the current MAC schools come into play, along with some aggressive FCS schools.

10. Ball State: No. 25 Indianapolis market. No direct competition. Ball State does have to fight being in an average football state going up against ND. But ND doesn't recruit Indiana all that much. The other two in-state FBS schools (Indiana and Purdue) are mediocre. To get into Indiana's vast hoops recruiting bed, BSU makes sense here.

11. Western Michigan: No. 39 Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo market: No direct competition. WMU has been a competitive MAC school in both football and basketball, and keeps the new league in Michigan. No, it's not Detroit, but Detroit is MSU and UM territory to begin with.

12. James Madison: No market (and private), but it's a school that seems to be looking to upgrade it's athletic profile. Plus, it's close enough to the No. 9 DC market where it would, even indirectly, add the DMV into the league's profile.

Now, you are looking at:

Basketball:
1. UConn
2. Cincinnati
3. Temple
4. UMass
5. Akron
6. Ohio
7. Western Michigan
8. Ball State
9. Toledo
10. Buffalo
11. James Madison
12. Northern Illinois

Nothing really changes (from the first nine)

Football:
1. Cincinnati
2. Northern Illinois
3. Toledo
4. UConn
5. Ohio
6. Temple
7. Buffalo
8. Ball State
9. Western Michigan
10. Akron
11. James Madison
12. UMass

Again nothing really changes.

But where would it would change ... markets:
1. NIU - No. 3
2. Temple - No. 4
3. UMass - No. 7 (arguably)
4. James Madison - No. 9 (arguably)
5. Akron - No. 17
6. Ball State - No. 25
7. Uconn - No. 30
8. Cincinnati - No. 34
9. Western Michigan - No. 39
10. Buffalo - No. 51
11. Toledo - No. 63
12. Ohio - No. 1,480 (joking, well kind of).

9 of the 12 bring in top 50 market, with Buffalo just missing, and Toledo still being respectable. Ohio doesn't matter. After all, it's "the flagship" ... Flagship or not, still a good fit.

I think where this is missing the boat is in trying to be too regional. Some of the schools that are most likely to push the AAC in football are not in the conference you describe. You might be better thinking in terms of regional "clusters" rather than a regional conference. Build a conference around the schools that seem dedicated to football success. NIU, UCF, ECU, Houston, and Cinci.

In the midwest, a cluster is constructed using NIU, Cinci, and two other MAC schools with markets/attendance and some football commitment. The 2 I chose could be switched if preferred. I just took two with some football success and respectable attendance.

In the southest, a Texas based cluster with Houston and 3 other area schools (any 3 of these would do SMU, Tulane, Texas State, Tulsa, UTSA, or Arky St).

In the southeast a Florida based cluster built from UCF, ECU, USF, and Memphis.

Finish in the northeast to enhance basketball and markets. A cluster of Temple, UConn, Navy, and Army. Navy and Army are football only. VCU and UMass are added as Olympic only sports members.


One possible version would be

NORTH

NIU
Cinci
Ohio
Buffalo
UConn
Temple
Navy (Football only)/VCU (Olympic sports)
Army (football only)/UMass (Olympic sports)



SOUTH

Houston
SMU
Texas St
Tulane
UCF
USF
Memphis
ECU



That's a league with some solid football teams capable of challenging for a BCS slot every year. That's a 4/6 bid basketball league. Theres a number of large markets there (including Chicago, Buffalo, Boston, Hartford, Philly, Cinci, Dallas, Richmond, Tampa, Orlando, Dallas, Houston, Memphis, New York, Washington DC, and New Orleans). Additionally, theres no attendance under 20K in those selections. In fact, at least half the league is over 30K attendance. Yeah, its spread out, but because its based on clusters, there are at least some relatively nearby teams for everyone. Another nice thing is this conference has a presence in the some of the top recruiting grounds in Ohio, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida.

Hey, do you know there's a board game for sale now, were you can build conferences and earn television revenues? You gather together franchises, and build stadiums, and figure out the high-attendance rivalries. Or wait, is this the on-line version of that game?

(11-11-2013 05:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-09-2013 05:20 AM)Wadszip Wrote:  I agree with Optimist, when he said there are only a couple of schools in the league that are trying to improve their programs. I also agree with Dr. Torch's list of schools that are trying, that are at status quo and the ones that are just along for the ride.

I also completely disagree with the whole concept that ESPN despises the MAC. ESPN is going with the money ... and yes, the MAC has made them money. The MAC is, as has been discussed, is good that it is a bunch of like schools that are in close proximity. For ESPN, that is a bad thing. ESPN wants to expand markets when bidding on a product.

With that said (and I know there will be a ton of political pressure that would need to be overcome), but instead of the 4-5 schools that realistically would fight for a spot in the AAC, why not join together and try to create a new league?

1. Akron
2. Ohio
3. NIU
4. Buffalo
5. Toledo

That's a solid core of five schools that are in the group of schools wanting to move on. Plus, four are in large media markets. OU doesn't have the TV market, but with all the joking of flagship, etc., nobody can deny that Ohio does have a brand as big as any in the current MAC, and an administration that is striving to build it even more through athletics.

Add
6. UMass (partial member) to that group. Another school that

You now need 6 more (have to have a football championship game.

Could that sway Cincinnati, Temple and UConn from the AAC? The easy answer is no. But if you look deeper, it actually may be a better scenario for all three when you look at what the AAC is about to become.

For basketball, it would look like this:
1. UConn
2. Cincinnati
3. Temple
4. UMass
5. Akron
6. Ohio
7. Toledo
8. Buffalo
9. Northern Illinois

Akron and OU have been two of the only MAC schools who have even been in the at-large conversation recently. Push them down to the No. 5 and 6 spot in a league, with Cincy, Temple and UConn, and it's easily a 3-4 bid league.

In football, it'll be:
1. Cincinnati
2. Northern Illinois
3. Toledo
4. UConn
5. Ohio
6. Temple
7. Buffalo
8. Akron
9. UMass

Is that as great group, no. But is that just as strong as the future AAC? Probably, especially when you consider proximity (for the minor sports).

The biggest factor, outside of proximity, would be TV markets. You'd have:
1. NIU: No. 3 Chicago. While NIU has direct competition, it's Northwestern, an elite private school.
2. Temple: No. 4 Philadelphia. No direct competition.
3. UMass: No. 7 Boston. While not directly Boston, it's the flagship state school in a big state that only BCS competition is a small, Catholic school.
4. Akron: No. 17 Cleveland. No direct competition.
5. UConn: No. 30 Hartford ... plus it's in the middle of the NY-Boston megalopolis.
6. Cincinnati: No. 34 Cincinnati. No direct competition.
7. Buffalo: No. 51 Buffalo. No direct competition.
8. Toledo: No. 73. No direct competition.
9. Ohio: No market, but we joke about it being a flagship or not. It's still a school with a large fan base in a big state. It's no worse overall than say East Carolina ... and OU brings better academics. ... and a better overall football/basketball mix.

With all that said, you would want to get it to 12 to get a championship game for football. What does that leave?

Well, that's where some of the current MAC schools come into play, along with some aggressive FCS schools.

10. Ball State: No. 25 Indianapolis market. No direct competition. Ball State does have to fight being in an average football state going up against ND. But ND doesn't recruit Indiana all that much. The other two in-state FBS schools (Indiana and Purdue) are mediocre. To get into Indiana's vast hoops recruiting bed, BSU makes sense here.

11. Western Michigan: No. 39 Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo market: No direct competition. WMU has been a competitive MAC school in both football and basketball, and keeps the new league in Michigan. No, it's not Detroit, but Detroit is MSU and UM territory to begin with.

12. James Madison: No market (and private), but it's a school that seems to be looking to upgrade it's athletic profile. Plus, it's close enough to the No. 9 DC market where it would, even indirectly, add the DMV into the league's profile.

Now, you are looking at:

Basketball:
1. UConn
2. Cincinnati
3. Temple
4. UMass
5. Akron
6. Ohio
7. Western Michigan
8. Ball State
9. Toledo
10. Buffalo
11. James Madison
12. Northern Illinois

Nothing really changes (from the first nine)

Football:
1. Cincinnati
2. Northern Illinois
3. Toledo
4. UConn
5. Ohio
6. Temple
7. Buffalo
8. Ball State
9. Western Michigan
10. Akron
11. James Madison
12. UMass

Again nothing really changes.

But where would it would change ... markets:
1. NIU - No. 3
2. Temple - No. 4
3. UMass - No. 7 (arguably)
4. James Madison - No. 9 (arguably)
5. Akron - No. 17
6. Ball State - No. 25
7. Uconn - No. 30
8. Cincinnati - No. 34
9. Western Michigan - No. 39
10. Buffalo - No. 51
11. Toledo - No. 63
12. Ohio - No. 1,480 (joking, well kind of).

9 of the 12 bring in top 50 market, with Buffalo just missing, and Toledo still being respectable. Ohio doesn't matter. After all, it's "the flagship" ... Flagship or not, still a good fit.

I think where this is missing the boat is in trying to be too regional. Some of the schools that are most likely to push the AAC in football are not in the conference you describe. You might be better thinking in terms of regional "clusters" rather than a regional conference. Build a conference around the schools that seem dedicated to football success. NIU, UCF, ECU, Houston, and Cinci.

In the midwest, a cluster is constructed using NIU, Cinci, and two other MAC schools with markets/attendance and some football commitment. The 2 I chose could be switched if preferred. I just took two with some football success and respectable attendance.

In the southest, a Texas based cluster with Houston and 3 other area schools (any 3 of these would do SMU, Tulane, Texas State, Tulsa, UTSA, or Arky St).

In the southeast a Florida based cluster built from UCF, ECU, USF, and Memphis.

Finish in the northeast to enhance basketball and markets. A cluster of Temple, UConn, Navy, and Army. Navy and Army are football only. VCU and UMass are added as Olympic only sports members.


One possible version would be

NORTH

NIU
Cinci
Ohio
Buffalo
UConn
Temple
Navy (Football only)/VCU (Olympic sports)
Army (football only)/UMass (Olympic sports)



SOUTH

Houston
SMU
Texas St
Tulane
UCF
USF
Memphis
ECU



That's a league with some solid football teams capable of challenging for a BCS slot every year. That's a 4/6 bid basketball league. Theres a number of large markets there (including Chicago, Buffalo, Boston, Hartford, Philly, Cinci, Dallas, Richmond, Tampa, Orlando, Dallas, Houston, Memphis, New York, Washington DC, and New Orleans). Additionally, theres no attendance under 20K in those selections. In fact, at least half the league is over 30K attendance. Yeah, its spread out, but because its based on clusters, there are at least some relatively nearby teams for everyone. Another nice thing is this conference has a presence in the some of the top recruiting grounds in Ohio, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida.

While I don't think what I proposed is too regional, it would be schools in Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan.

Population rank:
3. New York
5. Illinois
6. Pennsylvania
7. Ohio
9. Michigan
12. Virginia
14. Massachusetts
16. Indiana

That's five of the top 9 states (though it would still be Ohio heavy) and all 12 schools would be in top 16 states.

With that being said, I think a regional cluster idea is more realistic, especially if you can create four, six team clusters. (NE, MW, SE and Texas-area). The NE and MW, in theory, should align pretty well in minor sports, while the SE and Texas-area schools also should, and help offset travel costs. True, adding more schools dilutes the pot, which would mean this "potential" league would really have to do its research in adding schools that have a nice blend of athletics success/potential and big markets.

But you get the right mix of 24, it would get a ton of basketball tournament bids, and could have a chance to compete for a football playoff spot, especially if you get some creative football scheduling ... IE try to load up the schedules of teams that would be projected in the mix (kind of like the old Big East basketball scheduling).

Overall, for a non P5 league to have a chance at getting a shot at the playoffs, it'll probably take some sort of mix from the best of the (AAC, CUSA, MAC, Sun Belt, etc.) to come together and try to create a mega-league.