(04-30-2014 09:44 AM)TerryD Wrote:  I think that every school should be independent in every sport and be free to schedule whomever they want.

I think that every school should be independent and try to put together whatever TV deal they can without relying on a collective. That is the "eat what you kill" part you mentioned.

I think that conferences in general are a very bad idea and dislike the very idea of them.

I think that college football was very much better when FSU, Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia, Penn State, etc.. were all football independents.

I think that this "Borg like", "one size fits all", "everyone needs to be in a conference" idea is boring, destroys tradition and rivalries and takes too much power out of college presidents and AD's and puts too much power in the hands of conference commissioners.

I think that independence could/would foster better, more varied schedules and intersectional rivalries.

But, I am a dinosaur, in the extreme minority, nobody cares what I think and that bridge has already been crossed and burned down.

The NCAA post-season structure and CFP finance system don't make that very feasible for the G5 though top P5 could do it.

The best the G5 could do would be play more limited schedules within their conference, maybe 5 football games (minimum for a 12 team league under current rules) and the minimum 14 in basketball.

My idea:

Houston, UConn, Cincinnati, Navy, ECU, UCF, USF, and BYU all go (or stay) independent. Then each school schedules any 5 games they want to each year, then the remaining 7 they play against each other

(04-30-2014 11:06 AM)Redvolution Wrote:  My idea:

Houston, UConn, Cincinnati, Navy, ECU, UCF, USF, and BYU all go (or stay) independent. Then each school schedules any 5 games they want to each year, then the remaining 7 they play against each other

I have a clever name for it... American Athletic Conference! Think it will stick?

The two word answer: "Critical mass"


In the late 1980s when there were a few dozen independents, they all had each other to turn to for games. Because there were so many of them, no single one of them had a difficult time filling an 11-game schedule.


Now it's much much much tougher (plus, it's 12-games versus 11).

(04-30-2014 10:24 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Lood at BYU's schedule: 6H/6A per yer with the preponderance of good games on the road due to 2:1 or lopsided H:H:N scheduling arrangements with P5 schools. It's hard to sell season tickets when the home schedule is poor.

This is a good point. BYU has such a loyal following that they can sell tickets for that kind of home schedule. Other teams couldn't do that.

But, if there was a critical mass of 6-10 FBS independents, this problem would not be so bad. The indies could schedule each other to make their home schedules look a lot better than BYU's does now.

(04-30-2014 10:24 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  Again, look at BYU's contracted home games with ESPN. They're all Thursday and Friday night games.

Nope. One Thursday and one Friday home game for BYU in 2014; no Thursday and 2 Friday home games in 2013. The rest on Saturdays. And all of those home games, except for the one FCS game each year, are aired on an ESPN channel.

The bottom line is that a critical mass is needed to make football independence more attractive. With 3-7 more indies it would be very workable.

The real issues, if there is a critical mass of indies, are

(1) Finding a suitable conference for all other sports. This isn't impossible. But it can't be overlooked, either.

(2) Biggest issue: Exit fees in current conferences. IIRC, at the time BYU left the MWC, there were no MWC exit fees, but that's changed now. AAC also has exit fees. If attractive basketball properties like UConn and Cincinnati decided to leave the AAC for, e.g., football independence and either the Big East or A-10, the rest of the AAC would be pizzed and would make it as difficult as possible, and demand the maximum exit fee, plus any long advance notice period they could get away with, plus any other obstacles and financial penalties they could think of.

Speaking as a Texas State fan.

(04-30-2014 09:05 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  ...this really applies to the G5 (although a case can be made for Texas to go Indy as well).

Here are some reasons that can be used to justify independence:

1. The TV money isn't enough to warrant being tied to a conference. I'm pretty darn sure that a number of G5 schools can schedule 6h/6a and make enough between "buy" contracts and independent TV money (by game) to match the peanuts they are making already. You're not sacrificing 20m+ a year in going indy.
The Sun Belt's TV contract is peanuts, but it is better than what our university could negotiate on our own. Through it, we have games on ESPN2/ESPNU/LHN without it any games we have would be on CW Austin.

6 Away games wouldn't be a problem, I am not sure how we would do on the 6 home games especially late in the season when nobody wants to play outside of their league.


2. Greater control over scheduling. You can play the schools that you ACTUALLY want to. There are some G5 schools that would struggle to fill a schedule - but I'd wager a guess and say that half of them wouldn't struggle to do so.

Assuming you could get schools you want to play you. I would like to play some games against instate FBS schools (including Rice/UTSA/UNT), but only Texas Tech and Houston are interested in playing us.


3. Greater control over kickoff times.
agreed

4. You can always join a local conference for smaller sports if necessary. This happens all across the college landscape in the form of "affiliate memberships".

Football is one thing, but the conference affiliation makes things considerably easier for the other sports. In our area, the nonFBS conferences are SWAC, WAC, and Southland. SWAC is an HBCU league and I don't we'd be their first choice. We could have stayed in its current configuration but we got out of there, and

The Southland got upset with Louisiana Monroe when they first moved up to FBS and attempted to park their Olympic sports in the league. Since that time, they have made a rule that you can't do that. Additionally, our fans were excited about getting way from the Southland schools. They would would hate to have to play them in every other sport.

5. Keep what you kill - your branding is 100% your own.
[b]agreed
6. Winning a G5 conference has ZERO value. P5 conferences have high-end bowl tie-ins.
At least it gives you a trophy and bragging rights. These are benchmarks in and of themselves. Independence wouldn't give you that. Also, G5 programs have bowl tie-ins. They may not be as marquee as those of the P5 level, but they still there none the less.

7. Low end bowls will always be looking for teams. You will probably NOT struggle to find a bowl game if you go 8-4 in the year 2014.

--------

I imagine that there are reasons this doesn't happen, but I'm not sure what they are.

Thinking a bit more about it.

There is no reason why you can't game the system.

If MWC members agree, why shouldn't they play just the members of their division and then be free to fill the other 7 football games any way they want? Not vastly different from Notre Dame playing 4 ACC games.

You get to keep your bowl ties. If UNLV and New Mexico want to play each other despite being in other divisions they negotiate their own contract and the game doesn't count in the league standings. If Nevada and Boise want to keep their series going, it will be up to them to do it.

Maybe Utah State plays their five games that count in the standings and schedule "non-conference" everyone in the west division for 11 games while Colorado State might choose to play none of the western schools.

You can still have your title game pitting the two division champs.

If memory serves (not interested enough to look up right now) you only have to play 14 conference basketball games to qualify for an auto bid. Fine. Play your division members twice and figure out four crossover games.

You still get NCAA voting power. You still get to play the NCAA units game. You still get auto bids. You still get the full CFP distribution and still get access to the CFP and Access Bowl.

It'll cost you some money but in future TV deals you can even tell the network the league only owns the rights to games played between members, non-conference games aren't included and schools can do whatever they can muster for those games.

(04-30-2014 09:05 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  ...this really applies to the G5 (although a case can be made for Texas to go Indy as well).

Here are some reasons that can be used to justify independence:

1. The TV money isn't enough to warrant being tied to a conference. I'm pretty darn sure that a number of G5 schools can schedule 6h/6a and make enough between "buy" contracts and independent TV money (by game) to match the peanuts they are making already. You're not sacrificing 20m+ a year in going indy.

2. Greater control over scheduling. You can play the schools that you ACTUALLY want to. There are some G5 schools that would struggle to fill a schedule - but I'd wager a guess and say that half of them wouldn't struggle to do so.

3. Greater control over kickoff times.

4. You can always join a local conference for smaller sports if necessary. This happens all across the college landscape in the form of "affiliate memberships".

5. Keep what you kill - your branding is 100% your own.

6. Winning a G5 conference has ZERO value. P5 conferences have high-end bowl tie-ins.

7. Low end bowls will always be looking for teams. You will probably NOT struggle to find a bowl game if you go 8-4 in the year 2014.

---------

I imagine that there are reasons this doesn't happen, but I'm not sure what they are.

- Independents get no CFP money. Minimum $1 million/year for G5 members.
- Independents have terrible bowl access. BYU just signed with the Miami Beach Bowl. This is one reason why ND partnered with the ACC.
- Independents have a hard time scheduling games once conference regular seasons start. BYU has struggled to line up opponents. This is another reason ND partnered with the ACC. Sure Purdue will play them week 2, but so would anybody else. ND and BYU need opponents in weeks 6 through 12.

(04-30-2014 10:23 AM)ncbeta Wrote:  I'm on board with Terry's idea. Let schools feed off of their own hunt rather than the collective kills of the conference.

As I've said elsewhere, this simply is NOT how university presidents think.

They do NOT want high and low points from year-to-year from a revenue perspective. Instead, they want stable year-to-year numbers, which is what a conference is able to provide. University presidents are every bit as concerned about minimizing the negative impact of an awful year as they are about maximizing the profit from a great year. Notre Dame and BYU have been able to get those stable revenues due to their unique fan bases that are based on religious fervor as opposed to geography, but 99.9% of other schools simply can't accept the negative impact of having a bad year as an independent. Being in a conference (particularly a strong power 5 league) ensures that you're going to get paid whether you're 12-0 or 0-12 on-the-field (and that's ultimately what university presidents outside of ND and BYU want, whether they're Ohio State/Florida or Wake Forest/Washington State).

(04-30-2014 09:05 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  ...this really applies to the G5 (although a case can be made for Texas to go Indy as well).

Here are some reasons that can be used to justify independence:

1. The TV money isn't enough to warrant being tied to a conference. I'm pretty darn sure that a number of G5 schools can schedule 6h/6a and make enough between "buy" contracts and independent TV money (by game) to match the peanuts they are making already. You're not sacrificing 20m+ a year in going indy.

The Go5 level schools that are not already independent would not get enough independent TV exposure to replace the opportunity to play themselves into more TV games with a good season in the conference they are in.

Quote: 2. Greater control over scheduling. You can play the schools that you ACTUALLY want to. There are some G5 schools that would struggle to fill a schedule - but I'd wager a guess and say that half of them wouldn't struggle to do so.

I'd wager a guess and say that 80% of them would end up with a schedule no better or worse than what they have now.

Quote: 3. Greater control over kickoff times.

Not an issue for the reasons that Go5 schools subsidize sports. A kick-off time that is forced to change by "conference commitments is always due to the timing of a broadcast slot, and so from a University President's perspective is almost always a good thing.

Quote: 4. You can always join a local conference for smaller sports if necessary. This happens all across the college landscape in the form of "affiliate memberships".

Not only are affiliate members at risk of losing their affiliation based on changing needs of their host conference, but you can't be a D1 school based on affiliate memberships alone. Few Go5 schools would upgrade their BBall by moving to a non-FBS conference.

Some may, but now you are running into the critical mass issue ~ if you had twelve that were on the margin for going independent for the other reasons, a majority would prefer to remain in their current conference for BBall than the non-FBS BBall conference opportunities that they have.

Quote: 5. Keep what you kill - your branding is 100% your own.

This is only a slogan with appeal to a University President that for some reason has durable brand appeal independent of the upswings and, more importantly, downswings of the strength of their FB team. Which at the Go5 level boils down to BYU, Navy and Army, and even one of those decided that the benefits of conference participation outweigh the benefits of independence.

Quote: 6. Winning a G5 conference has ZERO value. P5 conferences have high-end bowl tie-ins.

This is total BS. First, for all but the Sunbelt, winning a G5 conference means you played on and won a nationally televised game, which is itself a benefit to a Go5 school. Second, it guarantees a better bowl slot than any Go5 school independent other than BYU, Navy or Army would get with a similar schedule. Third, it offers the opportunity to be the best of the five champions that goes to the Access Bowl.

Now, there are certainly a substantial number of college football fans that look down their noses at the Go5 conferences and belittle the champions of the Go5 conferences ... but they'd also belittle those same schools playing as independents, so P5 snobbery doesn't really enter into the pro-independence side of the balance.

Quote: 7. Low end bowls will always be looking for teams. You will probably NOT struggle to find a bowl game if you go 8-4 in the year 2014.

But if you are 8-4 in a conference and are not BYU, Navy or Army, you will be guaranteed a better bowl slot than those going to Go5 level independents. And assuming a "critical mass" of independent, whether you are 7-5 or 9-3, you are likely to be surrendering bowl places to 6-6 conference schools before any spots open up to you.

The reason it doesn't happen is the reason that all the big Eastern independents joined conferences in the 80's and 90's ... with conferences free to sign TV contracts, a conference place meant an opportunity to play your way into TV games when you have a good year, with the out of footprint alumni of the whole conference bolstering the audience for a national TV contract. For a broad regional or national TV contract with an independent, it has to have broad regional or national appeal.

That is what selected Notre Dame, Navy, Army and BYU as the remaining independents. BYU is the only one of those four to follow the track selected here, and even among that group Navy had decided that its better off in-conference, which seems likely to be the issue of bowl access ... not just gaining bowl tie-ins, which the service academies have been able to do, but developing a schedule from which they can qualify for a bowl.

Houston and Cincinnati can join the MVC for Olympic sports, USF and UCF can join the A-10, Navy's already in the Patriot, BYU already has WCC, ECU can likely go A-10 as well, and UConn can likely go anywhere they want. Each school has an agreement to play each other in basketball at least every other year, and every year in football. Voila, everybody's covered, and each school has a high quality football schedule each year.

I can dream, can't I?

(04-30-2014 05:12 PM)Redvolution Wrote:  Houston and Cincinnati can join the MVC for Olympic sports,

I expect they could, but it would be a serious drop from a multi-bid conference to what is presently a single bid conference. I don't see UC accepting the damage to their BBall in order to gain the damage to their FB from going independent.

Quote: USF and UCF can join the A-10,

They can?

Quote: ECU can likely go A-10 as well,

You're killing me here. ECU's RPI this season was 0.4699, 223rd in the country. The A10's Conference RPI was 0.5535, and only their last place team had an RPI below 0.4699. Why in the world would the A10 consider inviting ECU?

Quote: and UConn can likely go anywhere they want.

UConn could indeed play in the A10, if the New Big East was not willing to risk them dropping independence and bolting for a P5 conference opening ... which would be pretty much a parallel move, so if their football was better off independent (its not), then the quality of BBall competition wouldn't necessarily be an impediment.

(04-30-2014 11:49 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Thinking a bit more about it.

There is no reason why you can't game the system.

If MWC members agree, why shouldn't they play just the members of their division and then be free to fill the other 7 football games any way they want? Not vastly different from Notre Dame playing 4 ACC games.

Yes, if the greater scheduling flexibility was such a big win for a large number of Go5 schools, that would indeed be one way to get it without all of the costs of going fully independent.

It likely isn't such a big win, but if it were, that would be the easier way to gain the hypothetical benefit.

Colleges form conferences for the same reason that Nations form alliances. United we stand (prosper), dived we fall (do not make premium money)!

I hear the reasons why all day every day on local SLC sports talk.

BYU is finding it very difficult to put together a decent schedule year after year because the P5 want 2 for 1's - will not schedule home and home. Just take a look at BYU's home schedule this year - snore. That would be even worse for a G5 team.

You also have the issue of November games being meaningless, no all-conference nominations, locked into a crappy bowl unless you miraculously go undefeated...on and on.

Unless you are ND, independence sucks for the fans.

To elaborate on LSUtah's point BYU is the test case for the viability of independence for G5 level teams. If they can't do it successfully then no one can.

(05-01-2014 09:29 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  I hear the reasons why all day every day on local SLC sports talk.

BYU is finding it very difficult to put together a decent schedule year after year because the P5 want 2 for 1's - will not schedule home and home. Just take a look at BYU's home schedule this year - snore. That would be even worse for a G5 team.

You also have the issue of November games being meaningless, no all-conference nominations, locked into a crappy bowl unless you miraculously go undefeated...on and on.

Unless you are ND, independence sucks for the fans.

Well, when has BYU ever been other than a G5 team or its equivalent?

Would its schedule look any better if it were still in the Mountain West? I doubt it. This year they will have 3 MWC opponents at home (Utah State, Nevada and UNLV), one AAC team (Houston), one ACC team (Virginia) and an FCS team (Savannah State).

On the road, they play 2 AAC teams (UConn and UCF), California (PAC), Texas (Big 12), Boise State (MWC) and Middle Tennessee (USA).

That's a total of 4 MWC teams, 3 from the AAC and 3 from the P5. They play 2 Friday night games on the road, one before classes start and one at Boise State. They have one Thursday game in Orlando. All in all, that's not a bad schedule, and one that accommodates their religious limitations. But I suspect BYU is the exception, and most other independents wouldn't fare so well.

(05-01-2014 10:19 AM)ken d Wrote:  Well, when has BYU ever been other than a G5 team or its equivalent?

I think he means BYU is of the G5 level, but is a national brand, it is the school/team of an entire religion basically -- they have a built in fan base coast-to-coast that no other G5 school has. So if they can't make it work without a struggle, there is no way any other G5 program can.

(05-01-2014 10:19 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-01-2014 09:29 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  I hear the reasons why all day every day on local SLC sports talk.

BYU is finding it very difficult to put together a decent schedule year after year because the P5 want 2 for 1's - will not schedule home and home. Just take a look at BYU's home schedule this year - snore. That would be even worse for a G5 team.

You also have the issue of November games being meaningless, no all-conference nominations, locked into a crappy bowl unless you miraculously go undefeated...on and on.

Unless you are ND, independence sucks for the fans.

Well, when has BYU ever been other than a G5 team or its equivalent?

Would its schedule look any better if it were still in the Mountain West? I doubt it. This year they will have 3 MWC opponents at home (Utah State, Nevada and UNLV), one AAC team (Houston), one ACC team (Virginia) and an FCS team (Savannah State).

On the road, they play 2 AAC teams (UConn and UCF), California (PAC), Texas (Big 12), Boise State (MWC) and Middle Tennessee (USA).

That's a total of 4 MWC teams, 3 from the AAC and 3 from the P5. They play 2 Friday night games on the road, one before classes start and one at Boise State. They have one Thursday game in Orlando. All in all, that's not a bad schedule, and one that accommodates their religious limitations. But I suspect BYU is the exception, and most other independents wouldn't fare so well.

well for one- it's 6 home games and 6 away games. If they were in the MWC, they would have a shot at 7 home games. Also for fans- I think a BYU fan would rather play for instance Wyoming or New Mexico or Colorado St over having 2 MWC home games being UNLV or Nevada. Also get a 4th MWC home game instead of 1 of the AAC games- much more meaningful for the home crowd. Kind of tough for them to get worked up playing Houston.

For Football- the religious exceptions really don't come into play at all whatsoever. It's more the other sports. You'd have to think if BYU was in the MWC or AAC, they would move games around to accomidate BYU in the other sports.

also I would say that BYU's schedule this year is as good as it gets...
next year
@ Nebraska, Boise, @ Michigan, East Carolina, @ So Miss, Cincy, UConn, @ San Jose St, @ UNLV, Fresno St, and @ Utah St. Home schedule of Boise, ECU, Cincy, UConn, and Fresno St- plus then almost certainly add a FCS team as the 6th one.

2016 right now they have 2 home games scheduled- Southern Miss and Utah St. 3 road games and a neutral site vs West Virginia at Fedex field.

2017 now- Utah, Cal, Boise St
2018 now- Utah St, Hawaii
2019 now- Wisconsin, USC, Nevada, Boise St
2020 now- Arizona, Virginia
2021 now- Arizona St, Boise
2022 now- none
2023 now- Stanford, Boise

still have 2 home with Notre dame in there. The point though is that they can still keep in all but 2019 their good home games and still be in a conference.. Put all their eggs in the 2019 basket.. All other 9 years around that is pretty mediocre quite frankly....

I did not know BYU's schedules looked like that. It's not that bad considering they need some of those regional MWC teams. More Pac teams would be ideal.

Being in a conference wouldn't be so bad for BYU though. You look at SMU next year and they play pretty dang close to the difficulty of a P5 team's schedule (with a weak OOC). Same with USF and Tulane. That's if we are assuming that ECU, UH, Cincy and UCF are top 4 in the AAC (surely someone else will replace one of them, but this is pre-season). You have those four tough teams, plus 3 P5 teams OOC and that's a pretty mean schedule. Even SMU's "gimme" game of NT got votes in the poll last year.

BYU could certainly benefit from something like that if they ran the table.