(07-06-2014 06:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 04:53 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 03:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol. My favorite thing is when a person smugly uses facts without realizing they undermine his own case. Lets let your own facts do all the talking...

2011 TCU
OOC--Baylor, UL-Monroe, Portland St, SMU, BYU. Finished ranked and played a whopping ONE power conference team. They played a bunch of G5's---basically the same type of high end G5's Im suggesting should all band together in one conference.

2012 Boise

OOC- Michigan St, Miami (Oh), BYU, S Miss. Finished ranked and played a total of ONE power conference school. They played a bunch of G5's---basically the same type of high end G5's Im suggesting should all band together in one conference.


2012 Fresno St

OOC-Weber St, Oregon, Tulsa, SMU. Again---played ONE power conference school. Finished 9-4 and unranked. They played a bunch of G5's---basically the same type of high end G5's Im suggesting should all band together in one conference.


lol....what the hell were you trying to prove????? Thanks for proving my point so effectively. If you were trying to prove that playing a schedule largely made up of the strongest G5 programs can produce well thought of rankable schools---bravo! You did it! That's effectively what you get with my best of the rest G5 conference.

and my favorite thing is when you still don't understand the point of what I am saying or what is being discussed and when you make my point for me

again these are 8 TEAM CONFERENCES

and 10 TEAM CONFERENCES

playing SEVEN OR EIGHT CONFERENCE GAMES

these ARE NOT 14, 16 or 38 team conferences filled with the type or crap that losers and loser programs want to associate with

while only playing 1 P5 team as you managed to understand and point out TCU and Boise were able to be ranked many times and even very highly ranked.......and part of that is because instead of of being dumb enough to think...

"hey lets add north Texas state, charlotte, ODU, Georgia Southern, DogCrap State, and northwestern BFE to the conference so we can have a ton of turds that we are tied to year in and year out and that can associate our CONFERENCE with LOSSES AND LOSERS"

they figured out "hey lets NOT ADD THAT CRAP TO OUR CONFERENCE and instead lets just have them on the schedule and kick the crap out of them and send them away with a loss back to LOSERVILLE"

and when ALL OF US IN OUR CONFERENCE KICK CRAP LIKE THAT IN THE ASS IN OTHER CONFERENCES OUR CONFERENCE AND OUR TEAMS IN OUR CONFERENCE LOOK BETTER

again how dense does one have to be to not get that.......YOU DO NOT NEED READY MADE CRAP IN THE CONFERENCE......YOU NEED TO BEAT THE CRAP IN OTHER CONFERENCES

when everyone IN YOUR CONFERENCE beats CRAP IN OTHER CONFERENCES YOUR CONFERENCE LOOKS BETTER OVERALL

you seem to think that if Weber State, Portland State, ULM, a win less USM and on and on was in the MWC that people would call that a "high end conference"......instead of calling that a load of dogcrap

there is nothing HIGH END about rounding out a conference with GARBAGE

you seem to have it set in your brain that if ECU, Cincy, USF, UCF, Fresno, Boise, UH and SMU really wanted to go "high end" that instead of scheduling Kent, Buffalo, Miami (oh), north Texas state, Georgia Southern/State, Memphis, Temple, UConn and all the other turds that there are in the G5 IN THE OUT OF CONFERENCE that it is better to try and pick up the clean end of the turds and add them to the BOTTOM of the conference so you can be associated with them every week instead of the single week you beat them

you are just simply not smart and lack a basic understanding of what a good conference is

I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I never said anything about a 38 team conference. I'm suggesting a 16-20 team best-of-the-rest nationwide conference. The straw man conference concept you are attacking is something that was hatched inside your own mind. I never posted it. I never suggested it. I see no reason for it.

What Im suggesting is a simple. Two 8-team or 9-team divisions composed of the top G5 schools in the country. If NCAA deregulation of FBS divisional play occurs, you can go larger because you can utilize pods and keep the total conference schedule at 8. You could use 3 6-team pods (which is ideal). I agree with an 8 game conference schedule. Never said otherwise. If you're going to debate---please try and keep up with what is actually being said rather than making up your own straw men to knock down.

and what you don't understand is that is an idea with no use, no value, no worth and no benefit

there is no value in G5 "markets" and there are no G5 "market teams" so adding a bunch of pretend market teams is meaningless

there are not 16-20 teams that are remotely close to being equal in strength of program or budget or value or potential

your plan is nothing more than latching onto a bunch of junk in hope that you will be the crab that manages to crawl out of the pot and you will manage to get credit for it

your plan is for those that do not want to actually step up and do something for themselves your plan is for those that just hope a bunch of junk will somehow have more value piled together

instead of 8 teams stepping up and saying "we will compete and we will earn it every year" your plan is 18-20 losers grouping up and hoping that everyone else sucks worse than they do

here are your choices

Brigham Young
Cincinnati
East Carolina
Fresno State (ranked 2 times since 1992 #24/22 and 2004 #22)
Boise State


Northern Illinois (ranked 1 time ever 2012 #22/24)
South Florida (ranked 2 times ever 1998 #19/17 and 1999 #23)
Tulsa (ranked 2 times since 1991 in 2010 and 2012 #24/25)
Houston (ranked 1 time since 1990 in 2011 #14/18)
UCF (ranked 2 times ever 2010 #21/20 and 2013 #10/12)


Connecticut
Temple
Memphis
Southern Methodist
Tulane
Army
Navy
UAB
Western Kentucky
Marshall
Old Dominion
Florida Atlantic
Florida International
Middle Tennessee
Rice
North Texas
Louisiana Tech
Southern Miss
UTSA
UTEP
Massachusetts
Bowling Green
Miami (OH)
Ohio
Akron
Buffalo
Kent State
Ball State
Central Michigan
Eastern Michigan
Toledo
Western Michigan
San Diego State
San Jose State
Hawaii
UNLV
Nevada
Colorado State
New Mexico
Utah State
Air Force
Wyoming
South Alabama
Idaho
New Mexico State
Georgia Southern
Louisiana-Lafayette
Texas State
Appalachian State
Arkansas State
Georgia State
Louisiana-Monroe
Troy

the top 5 are ones that have accomplished anything of note in recent history and the next 5 are ones that have done pretty much less.....Fresno State and ECU are even a stretch for that accomplishment, but they draw strong fan support continuously for many years

after those 10 you have pretty much nothing that comes close to anything the top 5 have to offer or that the top 5 have accomplished and really nothing that even shows the REAL potential to even do what the second 5 have done

"markets", potential, possible new facilities, little bitty new facilities with a cobbled together budget made up mostly of student fees, small enrollments, small markets, markets they have never delivered, accomplishments that are not sustained past a season or two

who in their right mind would set out to make a conference that could have a "chance to be a "P5" type conference" or one that has top teams and then add on 8 to 10 teams that have shown over history that they don't live up to the hype or that have no history at all of anything

if these programs were together

Brigham Young
Cincinnati
East Carolina
Fresno State (ranked 2 times since 1992 #24/22 and 2004 #22)
Boise State
South Florida (ranked 2 times ever 1998 #19/17 and 1999 #23)
Houston (ranked 1 time since 1990 in 2011 #14/18)
UCF (ranked 2 times ever 2010 #21/20 and 2013 #10/12)

you would have 8 teams that at least draw fans consistently, have done something more than one time, have done something nationally meaningful, have come close to delivering a "market", have new facilities or quality facilities and that are even remotely close to being the same match

after that you are into NIU, Tulsa, USM, SDSU, CSU, SMU and that is about it......after that you just have programs that are a mess and keep being a mess

if the programs above need some other 8 to 10 programs to help them do anything they might as well all drop down to D1-AA+ or whatever junk teams will be called in the future

of those 8 teams above can't get it done as a group then it is pretty much over for any or all of them......thinking there is any "boost" by adding any of the rest of the mess is laughable

you seem to believe there is some expanded combination of that mess that people will look at and say "wow look at all that"......and you are right they will......they will say "wow look at all those programs that wish they could sustain success for longer than 2-3 seasons and look at the crap at the bottom which ones don't belong"

team up with the very top AVAILABLE teams and stop trying to hedge your bets or trying to have some "give" or trying to have a few "easy wins"

take a damn chance and PROVE something instead of just trying to pile in with junk and hope that someone gets it done.......step up and do it for yourself or run the risk of others joining with you and you being the one that sucks in the conference or running the risk of 65% of this "sUpAcOnFeReNcE" being total crap

step up and take something and earn it instead of looking at a bunch of programs that dream of getting into a conference where someone else will do great things......if that is your "goal" just give up

otherwise do something to actually differentiate yourself instead of trying to pretend like you can do like those you wish to be like do by imitating them......with everything except the on field performance, fan support, budget, facilities, "market", rankings and overall appeal

I look forward to you offering some really weak argument with 8 to 10 teams added to those top 10

(07-06-2014 07:59 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 06:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 04:53 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 03:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol. My favorite thing is when a person smugly uses facts without realizing they undermine his own case. Lets let your own facts do all the talking...

2011 TCU
OOC--Baylor, UL-Monroe, Portland St, SMU, BYU. Finished ranked and played a whopping ONE power conference team. They played a bunch of G5's---basically the same type of high end G5's Im suggesting should all band together in one conference.

2012 Boise

OOC- Michigan St, Miami (Oh), BYU, S Miss. Finished ranked and played a total of ONE power conference school. They played a bunch of G5's---basically the same type of high end G5's Im suggesting should all band together in one conference.


2012 Fresno St

OOC-Weber St, Oregon, Tulsa, SMU. Again---played ONE power conference school. Finished 9-4 and unranked. They played a bunch of G5's---basically the same type of high end G5's Im suggesting should all band together in one conference.


lol....what the hell were you trying to prove????? Thanks for proving my point so effectively. If you were trying to prove that playing a schedule largely made up of the strongest G5 programs can produce well thought of rankable schools---bravo! You did it! That's effectively what you get with my best of the rest G5 conference.

and my favorite thing is when you still don't understand the point of what I am saying or what is being discussed and when you make my point for me

again these are 8 TEAM CONFERENCES

and 10 TEAM CONFERENCES

playing SEVEN OR EIGHT CONFERENCE GAMES

these ARE NOT 14, 16 or 38 team conferences filled with the type or crap that losers and loser programs want to associate with

while only playing 1 P5 team as you managed to understand and point out TCU and Boise were able to be ranked many times and even very highly ranked.......and part of that is because instead of of being dumb enough to think...

"hey lets add north Texas state, charlotte, ODU, Georgia Southern, DogCrap State, and northwestern BFE to the conference so we can have a ton of turds that we are tied to year in and year out and that can associate our CONFERENCE with LOSSES AND LOSERS"

they figured out "hey lets NOT ADD THAT CRAP TO OUR CONFERENCE and instead lets just have them on the schedule and kick the crap out of them and send them away with a loss back to LOSERVILLE"

and when ALL OF US IN OUR CONFERENCE KICK CRAP LIKE THAT IN THE ASS IN OTHER CONFERENCES OUR CONFERENCE AND OUR TEAMS IN OUR CONFERENCE LOOK BETTER

again how dense does one have to be to not get that.......YOU DO NOT NEED READY MADE CRAP IN THE CONFERENCE......YOU NEED TO BEAT THE CRAP IN OTHER CONFERENCES

when everyone IN YOUR CONFERENCE beats CRAP IN OTHER CONFERENCES YOUR CONFERENCE LOOKS BETTER OVERALL

you seem to think that if Weber State, Portland State, ULM, a win less USM and on and on was in the MWC that people would call that a "high end conference"......instead of calling that a load of dogcrap

there is nothing HIGH END about rounding out a conference with GARBAGE

you seem to have it set in your brain that if ECU, Cincy, USF, UCF, Fresno, Boise, UH and SMU really wanted to go "high end" that instead of scheduling Kent, Buffalo, Miami (oh), north Texas state, Georgia Southern/State, Memphis, Temple, UConn and all the other turds that there are in the G5 IN THE OUT OF CONFERENCE that it is better to try and pick up the clean end of the turds and add them to the BOTTOM of the conference so you can be associated with them every week instead of the single week you beat them

you are just simply not smart and lack a basic understanding of what a good conference is

I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I never said anything about a 38 team conference. I'm suggesting a 16-20 team best-of-the-rest nationwide conference. The straw man conference concept you are attacking is something that was hatched inside your own mind. I never posted it. I never suggested it. I see no reason for it.

What Im suggesting is a simple. Two 8-team or 9-team divisions composed of the top G5 schools in the country. If NCAA deregulation of FBS divisional play occurs, you can go larger because you can utilize pods and keep the total conference schedule at 8. You could use 3 6-team pods (which is ideal). I agree with an 8 game conference schedule. Never said otherwise. If you're going to debate---please try and keep up with what is actually being said rather than making up your own straw men to knock down.

and what you don't understand is that is an idea with no use, no value, no worth and no benefit

there is no value in G5 "markets" and there are no G5 "market teams" so adding a bunch of pretend market teams is meaningless

there are not 16-20 teams that are remotely close to being equal in strength of program or budget or value or potential

your plan is nothing more than latching onto a bunch of junk in hope that you will be the crab that manages to crawl out of the pot and you will manage to get credit for it

your plan is for those that do not want to actually step up and do something for themselves your plan is for those that just hope a bunch of junk will somehow have more value piled together

instead of 8 teams stepping up and saying "we will compete and we will earn it every year" your plan is 18-20 losers grouping up and hoping that everyone else sucks worse than they do

here are your choices

Brigham Young
Cincinnati
East Carolina
Fresno State (ranked 2 times since 1992 #24/22 and 2004 #22)
Boise State


Northern Illinois (ranked 1 time ever 2012 #22/24)
South Florida (ranked 2 times ever 1998 #19/17 and 1999 #23)
Tulsa (ranked 2 times since 1991 in 2010 and 2012 #24/25)
Houston (ranked 1 time since 1990 in 2011 #14/18)
UCF (ranked 2 times ever 2010 #21/20 and 2013 #10/12)


Connecticut
Temple
Memphis
Southern Methodist
Tulane
Army
Navy
UAB
Western Kentucky
Marshall
Old Dominion
Florida Atlantic
Florida International
Middle Tennessee
Rice
North Texas
Louisiana Tech
Southern Miss
UTSA
UTEP
Massachusetts
Bowling Green
Miami (OH)
Ohio
Akron
Buffalo
Kent State
Ball State
Central Michigan
Eastern Michigan
Toledo
Western Michigan
San Diego State
San Jose State
Hawaii
UNLV
Nevada
Colorado State
New Mexico
Utah State
Air Force
Wyoming
South Alabama
Idaho
New Mexico State
Georgia Southern
Louisiana-Lafayette
Texas State
Appalachian State
Arkansas State
Georgia State
Louisiana-Monroe
Troy

the top 5 are ones that have accomplished anything of note in recent history and the next 5 are ones that have done pretty much less.....Fresno State and ECU are even a stretch for that accomplishment, but they draw strong fan support continuously for many years

after those 10 you have pretty much nothing that comes close to anything the top 5 have to offer or that the top 5 have accomplished and really nothing that even shows the REAL potential to even do what the second 5 have done

"markets", potential, possible new facilities, little bitty new facilities with a cobbled together budget made up mostly of student fees, small enrollments, small markets, markets they have never delivered, accomplishments that are not sustained past a season or two

who in their right mind would set out to make a conference that could have a "chance to be a "P5" type conference" or one that has top teams and then add on 8 to 10 teams that have shown over history that they don't live up to the hype or that have no history at all of anything

if these programs were together

Brigham Young
Cincinnati
East Carolina
Fresno State (ranked 2 times since 1992 #24/22 and 2004 #22)
Boise State
South Florida (ranked 2 times ever 1998 #19/17 and 1999 #23)
Houston (ranked 1 time since 1990 in 2011 #14/18)
UCF (ranked 2 times ever 2010 #21/20 and 2013 #10/12)

you would have 8 teams that at least draw fans consistently, have done something more than one time, have done something nationally meaningful, have come close to delivering a "market", have new facilities or quality facilities and that are even remotely close to being the same match

after that you are into NIU, Tulsa, USM, SDSU, CSU, SMU and that is about it......after that you just have programs that are a mess and keep being a mess

if the programs above need some other 8 to 10 programs to help them do anything they might as well all drop down to D1-AA+ or whatever junk teams will be called in the future

of those 8 teams above can't get it done as a group then it is pretty much over for any or all of them......thinking there is any "boost" by adding any of the rest of the mess is laughable

you seem to believe there is some expanded combination of that mess that people will look at and say "wow look at all that"......and you are right they will......they will say "wow look at all those programs that wish they could sustain success for longer than 2-3 seasons and look at the crap at the bottom which ones don't belong"

team up with the very top AVAILABLE teams and stop trying to hedge your bets or trying to have some "give" or trying to have a few "easy wins"

take a damn chance and PROVE something instead of just trying to pile in with junk and hope that someone gets it done.......step up and do it for yourself or run the risk of others joining with you and you being the one that sucks in the conference or running the risk of 65% of this "sUpAcOnFeReNcE" being total crap

step up and take something and earn it instead of looking at a bunch of programs that dream of getting into a conference where someone else will do great things......if that is your "goal" just give up

otherwise do something to actually differentiate yourself instead of trying to pretend like you can do like those you wish to be like do by imitating them......with everything except the on field performance, fan support, budget, facilities, "market", rankings and overall appeal

I look forward to you offering some really weak argument with 8 to 10 teams added to those top 10

I guess that's where we differ. You think G5 schools are basically valueless. I think they can have value if you pick the right ones, with the right balance, and package them correctly. They are not going to have P5 value---but they can be worth more than 10% of P5 value.

My opinion is there are about 15-20 that are a little more valuable than the rest. Keep in mind--there are schools that dominate their market (you are wrong there) and there are schools that have limited success for football---but are of great value for basketball. This is an all-sports conference and the idea is to create value where little exists currently. The Big East makes 4 million a team with NO football. There is value to be generated with basketball--especially when one realizes you cant make a football power conference out of spare G5 parts. You have to consider the entire package when building a nationwide all-sports G5 conference.

What you can do is bundle the best known G5 schools together. You can carefully cherry pick the largest budgets, the strongest G5 football programs, the most consistent G5 basketball programs---and cobble together a conference that can generate significant income from the revenue sports. You can get all the programs with a legitimate chance of averaging 40K a football game under one roof.

Something like this would be along the lines Im thinking of---

East--

UConn
Cincy
Temple
ECU
UCF
USF
Memphis
Navy


West

Boise
BYU
SDSU
Fresno
New Mexico
UNLV
Houston
SMU


Bascially, Im housing the best basketball and football under one roof. Your playing 8 games in the conference. Yes, UNLV, UConn, Memphis, Temple, and New Mexico are likely to be bad more often than good on the grid iron. So what? No matter the size of the conference--you are going to have bad teams at the bottom. At least with this configuration, your "bad" football teams are brining in NCAA credits in basketball season and making you league a valuable winter programming property. Everyone is bringing something to the table. The league earnings are maximized, there is no dead weight.

If you can get this conference to average 40K a game---you begin to begin scratching at the bottom of power conference territory---except this conference has a nationwide footprint. Plus, on day one, it's already a basketball power conference capable of landing 7-10 bids a year. That's a very nice property for any national cable sports network and will command a premium over the other smaller G5's that don't have near the name recognition, the facilities, the budgets, or the on-the-field strength of this grouping. Give this conference 2 6-year contracts and they will be generating half of what the power conferences earn---and nearly 5 times what the other G5's earn.

there 2 major things your missing about 20 school national conf of G5
1st off you need bottom feeders [P5 has there share as well]
schools programs can also grow & conf consist of many variables

(07-06-2014 05:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 01:42 PM)MJG Wrote:  Nine teams is ideal for a football conference.
That ship has sailed fourteen or twelve makes no difference.
Sixteen could work anything more becomes a loose association.

I was thinking the AAC adding New Mexico and one other MWC school. Hurting the biggest competition and possibly helping travel with the East and West split.

The question is does that automatically place the AAC above the MWC. I wasn't asking if it should or probably will happen.

Over the past four years, New Mexico's average Sagarin power rank was #159 among D-I schools. Keep in mind that there were only 126 teams in the FBS during that time, and 119 of those were ranked ahead of New Mexico. How does adding a school that ranked below 33 FCS teams strengthen the AAC?

The AAC adding New Mexico would be similar to Memphis.
Strong basketball program good facilities good market plus a flagship. Playing in a AAC West with two Texas schools and a current conference members . The travel would be close to the same. The perception of taking schools away helps. That is what this thread was about. The replacement MWC teams would weaken the conference.

Flagship refers to UNM before someone jumps on that.
Someone has to be at the bottom in football .
Every team cannot finish 7-1 in conference.
Having a strong basketball program helps as much as football.

Say UNM and UNLV make the tournament in basketball consistently. The conference can get more bids to the tournament. Adding strong football programs just knocks another team down. That is true once you have enough strong football programs.

(07-06-2014 09:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I guess that's where we differ. You think G5 schools are basically valueless. I think they can have value if you pick the right ones, with the right balance, and package them correctly. They are not going to have P5 value---but they can be worth more than 10% of P5 value.

My opinion is there are about 15-20 that are a little more valuable than the rest. Keep in mind--there are schools that dominate their market (you are wrong there) and there are schools that have limited success for football---but are of great value for basketball. This is an all-sports conference and the idea is to create value where little exists currently. The Big East makes 4 million a team with NO football. There is value to be generated with basketball--especially when one realizes you cant make a football power conference out of spare G5 parts. You have to consider the entire package when building a nationwide all-sports G5 conference.

What you can do is bundle the best known G5 schools together. You can carefully cherry pick the largest budgets, the strongest G5 football programs, the most consistent G5 basketball programs---and cobble together a conference that can generate significant income from the revenue sports. You can get all the programs with a legitimate chance of averaging 40K a football game under one roof.

Something like this would be along the lines Im thinking of---

East--

UConn
Cincy
Temple
ECU
UCF
USF
Memphis
Navy


West

Boise
BYU
SDSU
Fresno
New Mexico
UNLV
Houston
SMU


Bascially, Im housing the best basketball and football under one roof. Your playing 8 games in the conference. Yes, UNLV, UConn, Memphis, Temple, and New Mexico are likely to be bad more often than good on the grid iron. So what? No matter the size of the conference--you are going to have bad teams at the bottom. At least with this configuration, your "bad" football teams are brining in NCAA credits in basketball season and making you league a valuable winter programming property. Everyone is bringing something to the table. The league earnings are maximized, there is no dead weight.

If you can get this conference to average 40K a game---you begin to begin scratching at the bottom of power conference territory---except this conference has a nationwide footprint. Plus, on day one, it's already a basketball power conference capable of landing 7-10 bids a year. That's a very nice property for any national cable sports network and will command a premium over the other smaller G5's that don't have near the name recognition, the facilities, the budgets, or the on-the-field strength of this grouping. Give this conference 2 6-year contracts and they will be generating half of what the power conferences earn---and nearly 5 times what the other G5's earn.

no where you and I differ is that if I was actually looking to set myself apart from something I would not attempt to do so by grouping myself up with those that are easily identified as what I am trying to set myself apart from

if I wanted to set myself apart from a larger group of 70+ schools that most people view the same the last thing I would do is group myself up with 22% to 28% of them and pretend that I was somehow in a different group especially when half of the group I was in could be easily interchanged with any of the others I was trying to set myself apart from

or when I could group up with 10% or 11% of those 70 and start beating down the remainder of those 70 regularly while not being weighed down by the other 12% to 18% that are regularly performing just like those I was trying to distance from

if you have 70 teams in 10 conferences of 7 and you are all playing games and you are trying to standout from those 70 and you want to be in a group that CLEARLY stands out from those 70 then you and the other 6 you are with can beat the other 63 or you can take the "poach" approach

and you can take the "top 3" from one other group of 7 and you can be in with 10 of the 70 then......and you can watch that group of 10 stratify over time......and then you can "improve yourself and your conference perception" by taking the top 3 from another group of 7.......and then you can watch your group of 13 stratify over time........so you poach 3 more "top teams" from another group of 7

and over time you and your "top conference" will be 20 teams that half or more of them suck and perform at a level lower than many other of the top teams in the remaining groups outside of your and then you can try and take some of the "top teams" from your group and a few others and reform again......and repeat over and over

or you can simply be smart enough to join up with 6 other teams that you know can beat up on the other 63 teams regularly, you can limit the number of games that you beat up on each other and you can set yourself apart as the elite 10% of that group of 70 instead of miring yourself as a good team in 20% or 30% of those 70 that is readily and easily associated with the 50% to 66% of the terrible teams in your "elite group" of schools

ditch that lower half to 1/3 and the 7 of you set yourself apart from the other 63.........when the only others available to your group of 7 will ALWAYS be readily identifiable with the others they do nothing to help your perception

and sitting around pretending they will elevate themselves when they have failed to do so for decades is just wasting YOUR TIME and YOUR REPUTATION because you do not have enough guts and enough backbone to go with a group that can truly set themselves apart.......you prefer to weigh yourself down with others pretending that somehow helps set you apart

(07-06-2014 10:31 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  there 2 major things your missing about 20 school national conf of G5
1st off you need bottom feeders [P5 has there share as well]
schools programs can also grow & conf consist of many variables

why that is a ridiculous and completely unsupported premise

if the SEC SEC SEC could get rid of Vandy Football, MSU Football and KU Football and instead play OOC games the reputation of the SEC SEC SEC would not suffer one bit and in fact it would increase

if the Big 10 was MSU, MU, tOSU, Penn State, NU, WU and then add in 2 of the rest and they were playing 7 conference games and 5 OOC games from a perception point of view that would be easily a better overall conference for football than what the Big 10 is currently

mixing in MN, IN, IL, Rutgers, Maryland, NW and all the other crap does nothing to make the Big 10 into an elite conference or to elevate their own the field performance

and I am sure some will wan to point out the TV dollars from the Big 10 and the fact that the Big 10 added two pieces of crap recently.......but again we are talking about the Big 10 that has just what those same people would bash upon and that is freeloading bottom feeders and a long history of getting paid more when they did not deserve it

the teams in the G5 do not have that and they will NEVER have that as long as they PRETEND and live in fairy land that they can somehow get a group together with 5-6 good teams and 10-14 pieces of crap and somehow get paid more and get a contract based on having a few good teams and bottom feeders........never mind that the freeloaders in the P5 are still able to compete with 90% of the G5 on a regular basis and it is only about 10% of the G5 that readily competes with and beats even the lower levels of the P5

again that is the laughable concept of teams in the G5 trying to elevate themselves by imitating the P5......getting the 7-8 teams together that compete with the lower levels of the P5 and then tacking on just as many of not more that regularly do not compete with the lower levels of the P5 and pretending that is a competitive conference or one that will be recognized

instead of having the testicular and intestinal fortitude to get together with the 7-8 teams that get it done and thumping the G5 teams regularly and competing with the lower P5 teams often and building to compete with the middle and higher P5 teams.......instead of for some wild reason pretending that 7-10 more teams that regularly perform just like all the bad G5 teams somehow is a benefit because it means you have your bottom feeders and begging bowl holders like the P5 does or pretending that the bottom feeders and begging bowl holders bring value to their P5 conference instead of bottom feeding it and begging bowling in it and dragging it down overall from an on the field perspective

(07-06-2014 09:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 07:59 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 06:24 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 04:53 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 03:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  lol. My favorite thing is when a person smugly uses facts without realizing they undermine his own case. Lets let your own facts do all the talking...

2011 TCU
OOC--Baylor, UL-Monroe, Portland St, SMU, BYU. Finished ranked and played a whopping ONE power conference team. They played a bunch of G5's---basically the same type of high end G5's Im suggesting should all band together in one conference.

2012 Boise

OOC- Michigan St, Miami (Oh), BYU, S Miss. Finished ranked and played a total of ONE power conference school. They played a bunch of G5's---basically the same type of high end G5's Im suggesting should all band together in one conference.


2012 Fresno St

OOC-Weber St, Oregon, Tulsa, SMU. Again---played ONE power conference school. Finished 9-4 and unranked. They played a bunch of G5's---basically the same type of high end G5's Im suggesting should all band together in one conference.


lol....what the hell were you trying to prove????? Thanks for proving my point so effectively. If you were trying to prove that playing a schedule largely made up of the strongest G5 programs can produce well thought of rankable schools---bravo! You did it! That's effectively what you get with my best of the rest G5 conference.

and my favorite thing is when you still don't understand the point of what I am saying or what is being discussed and when you make my point for me

again these are 8 TEAM CONFERENCES

and 10 TEAM CONFERENCES

playing SEVEN OR EIGHT CONFERENCE GAMES

these ARE NOT 14, 16 or 38 team conferences filled with the type or crap that losers and loser programs want to associate with

while only playing 1 P5 team as you managed to understand and point out TCU and Boise were able to be ranked many times and even very highly ranked.......and part of that is because instead of of being dumb enough to think...

"hey lets add north Texas state, charlotte, ODU, Georgia Southern, DogCrap State, and northwestern BFE to the conference so we can have a ton of turds that we are tied to year in and year out and that can associate our CONFERENCE with LOSSES AND LOSERS"

they figured out "hey lets NOT ADD THAT CRAP TO OUR CONFERENCE and instead lets just have them on the schedule and kick the crap out of them and send them away with a loss back to LOSERVILLE"

and when ALL OF US IN OUR CONFERENCE KICK CRAP LIKE THAT IN THE ASS IN OTHER CONFERENCES OUR CONFERENCE AND OUR TEAMS IN OUR CONFERENCE LOOK BETTER

again how dense does one have to be to not get that.......YOU DO NOT NEED READY MADE CRAP IN THE CONFERENCE......YOU NEED TO BEAT THE CRAP IN OTHER CONFERENCES

when everyone IN YOUR CONFERENCE beats CRAP IN OTHER CONFERENCES YOUR CONFERENCE LOOKS BETTER OVERALL

you seem to think that if Weber State, Portland State, ULM, a win less USM and on and on was in the MWC that people would call that a "high end conference"......instead of calling that a load of dogcrap

there is nothing HIGH END about rounding out a conference with GARBAGE

you seem to have it set in your brain that if ECU, Cincy, USF, UCF, Fresno, Boise, UH and SMU really wanted to go "high end" that instead of scheduling Kent, Buffalo, Miami (oh), north Texas state, Georgia Southern/State, Memphis, Temple, UConn and all the other turds that there are in the G5 IN THE OUT OF CONFERENCE that it is better to try and pick up the clean end of the turds and add them to the BOTTOM of the conference so you can be associated with them every week instead of the single week you beat them

you are just simply not smart and lack a basic understanding of what a good conference is

I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I never said anything about a 38 team conference. I'm suggesting a 16-20 team best-of-the-rest nationwide conference. The straw man conference concept you are attacking is something that was hatched inside your own mind. I never posted it. I never suggested it. I see no reason for it.

What Im suggesting is a simple. Two 8-team or 9-team divisions composed of the top G5 schools in the country. If NCAA deregulation of FBS divisional play occurs, you can go larger because you can utilize pods and keep the total conference schedule at 8. You could use 3 6-team pods (which is ideal). I agree with an 8 game conference schedule. Never said otherwise. If you're going to debate---please try and keep up with what is actually being said rather than making up your own straw men to knock down.

and what you don't understand is that is an idea with no use, no value, no worth and no benefit

there is no value in G5 "markets" and there are no G5 "market teams" so adding a bunch of pretend market teams is meaningless

there are not 16-20 teams that are remotely close to being equal in strength of program or budget or value or potential

your plan is nothing more than latching onto a bunch of junk in hope that you will be the crab that manages to crawl out of the pot and you will manage to get credit for it

your plan is for those that do not want to actually step up and do something for themselves your plan is for those that just hope a bunch of junk will somehow have more value piled together

instead of 8 teams stepping up and saying "we will compete and we will earn it every year" your plan is 18-20 losers grouping up and hoping that everyone else sucks worse than they do

here are your choices

Brigham Young
Cincinnati
East Carolina
Fresno State (ranked 2 times since 1992 #24/22 and 2004 #22)
Boise State


Northern Illinois (ranked 1 time ever 2012 #22/24)
South Florida (ranked 2 times ever 1998 #19/17 and 1999 #23)
Tulsa (ranked 2 times since 1991 in 2010 and 2012 #24/25)
Houston (ranked 1 time since 1990 in 2011 #14/18)
UCF (ranked 2 times ever 2010 #21/20 and 2013 #10/12)


Connecticut
Temple
Memphis
Southern Methodist
Tulane
Army
Navy
UAB
Western Kentucky
Marshall
Old Dominion
Florida Atlantic
Florida International
Middle Tennessee
Rice
North Texas
Louisiana Tech
Southern Miss
UTSA
UTEP
Massachusetts
Bowling Green
Miami (OH)
Ohio
Akron
Buffalo
Kent State
Ball State
Central Michigan
Eastern Michigan
Toledo
Western Michigan
San Diego State
San Jose State
Hawaii
UNLV
Nevada
Colorado State
New Mexico
Utah State
Air Force
Wyoming
South Alabama
Idaho
New Mexico State
Georgia Southern
Louisiana-Lafayette
Texas State
Appalachian State
Arkansas State
Georgia State
Louisiana-Monroe
Troy

the top 5 are ones that have accomplished anything of note in recent history and the next 5 are ones that have done pretty much less.....Fresno State and ECU are even a stretch for that accomplishment, but they draw strong fan support continuously for many years

after those 10 you have pretty much nothing that comes close to anything the top 5 have to offer or that the top 5 have accomplished and really nothing that even shows the REAL potential to even do what the second 5 have done

"markets", potential, possible new facilities, little bitty new facilities with a cobbled together budget made up mostly of student fees, small enrollments, small markets, markets they have never delivered, accomplishments that are not sustained past a season or two

who in their right mind would set out to make a conference that could have a "chance to be a "P5" type conference" or one that has top teams and then add on 8 to 10 teams that have shown over history that they don't live up to the hype or that have no history at all of anything

if these programs were together

Brigham Young
Cincinnati
East Carolina
Fresno State (ranked 2 times since 1992 #24/22 and 2004 #22)
Boise State
South Florida (ranked 2 times ever 1998 #19/17 and 1999 #23)
Houston (ranked 1 time since 1990 in 2011 #14/18)
UCF (ranked 2 times ever 2010 #21/20 and 2013 #10/12)

you would have 8 teams that at least draw fans consistently, have done something more than one time, have done something nationally meaningful, have come close to delivering a "market", have new facilities or quality facilities and that are even remotely close to being the same match

after that you are into NIU, Tulsa, USM, SDSU, CSU, SMU and that is about it......after that you just have programs that are a mess and keep being a mess

if the programs above need some other 8 to 10 programs to help them do anything they might as well all drop down to D1-AA+ or whatever junk teams will be called in the future

of those 8 teams above can't get it done as a group then it is pretty much over for any or all of them......thinking there is any "boost" by adding any of the rest of the mess is laughable

you seem to believe there is some expanded combination of that mess that people will look at and say "wow look at all that"......and you are right they will......they will say "wow look at all those programs that wish they could sustain success for longer than 2-3 seasons and look at the crap at the bottom which ones don't belong"

team up with the very top AVAILABLE teams and stop trying to hedge your bets or trying to have some "give" or trying to have a few "easy wins"

take a damn chance and PROVE something instead of just trying to pile in with junk and hope that someone gets it done.......step up and do it for yourself or run the risk of others joining with you and you being the one that sucks in the conference or running the risk of 65% of this "sUpAcOnFeReNcE" being total crap

step up and take something and earn it instead of looking at a bunch of programs that dream of getting into a conference where someone else will do great things......if that is your "goal" just give up

otherwise do something to actually differentiate yourself instead of trying to pretend like you can do like those you wish to be like do by imitating them......with everything except the on field performance, fan support, budget, facilities, "market", rankings and overall appeal

I look forward to you offering some really weak argument with 8 to 10 teams added to those top 10

I guess that's where we differ. You think G5 schools are basically valueless. I think they can have value if you pick the right ones, with the right balance, and package them correctly. They are not going to have P5 value---but they can be worth more than 10% of P5 value.

My opinion is there are about 15-20 that are a little more valuable than the rest. Keep in mind--there are schools that dominate their market (you are wrong there) and there are schools that have limited success for football---but are of great value for basketball. This is an all-sports conference and the idea is to create value where little exists currently. The Big East makes 4 million a team with NO football. There is value to be generated with basketball--especially when one realizes you cant make a football power conference out of spare G5 parts. You have to consider the entire package when building a nationwide all-sports G5 conference.

What you can do is bundle the best known G5 schools together. You can carefully cherry pick the largest budgets, the strongest G5 football programs, the most consistent G5 basketball programs---and cobble together a conference that can generate significant income from the revenue sports. You can get all the programs with a legitimate chance of averaging 40K a football game under one roof.

Something like this would be along the lines Im thinking of---

East--

UConn
Cincy
Temple
ECU
UCF
USF
Memphis
Navy


West

Boise
BYU
SDSU
Fresno
New Mexico
UNLV
Houston
SMU


Bascially, Im housing the best basketball and football under one roof. Your playing 8 games in the conference. Yes, UNLV, UConn, Memphis, Temple, and New Mexico are likely to be bad more often than good on the grid iron. So what? No matter the size of the conference--you are going to have bad teams at the bottom. At least with this configuration, your "bad" football teams are brining in NCAA credits in basketball season and making you league a valuable winter programming property. Everyone is bringing something to the table. The league earnings are maximized, there is no dead weight.

If you can get this conference to average 40K a game---you begin to begin scratching at the bottom of power conference territory---except this conference has a nationwide footprint. Plus, on day one, it's already a basketball power conference capable of landing 7-10 bids a year. That's a very nice property for any national cable sports network and will command a premium over the other smaller G5's that don't have near the name recognition, the facilities, the budgets, or the on-the-field strength of this grouping. Give this conference 2 6-year contracts and they will be generating half of what the power conferences earn---and nearly 5 times what the other G5's earn.

I agree you could fashion the best G5 conference out of these schools. And, that conference would have greater value than the AAC currently does. Whether it has more value per member I'm not as sure of.

Bear in mind that your 16 team proposal is not possible. You would have to go to 18. The reason is that you could not get the votes within the AAC to expel Tulane and Tulsa, so you would have to keep them both.

Then, you would have to persuade BYU to give up its independence for a 1/18th share of a G5 conference revenue base. I suppose that's possible, but it's more than a little iffy.

To secure value from media contracts commensurate with the inherent value of its brands and markets, this league would probably have to secure a GoR agreement from all its members. That means that the brands currently lusting after a P5 invite would have to accept that they are G5 for at least the next 6 years or so.

If you do all this, you wind up with a conference with a two year average attendance of 31K (the ACC is the lowest P5 at around 50K). Their four year average number of NCAAT bids is 7.5 and their 4 year average Sagarin power ranking is 82 (vs the P5 average of 44 and the weakest P5 conference of 55). And despite being the clearly superior conference, there is no assurance that your champion would be selected for an access bowl ahead of a dominant team in the MAC.

So, is all that going to be worth it for the half dozen schools with reasonable hopes for a P5 callup? I think that's a tough call for some of them.

(07-07-2014 07:23 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 09:14 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I guess that's where we differ. You think G5 schools are basically valueless. I think they can have value if you pick the right ones, with the right balance, and package them correctly. They are not going to have P5 value---but they can be worth more than 10% of P5 value.

My opinion is there are about 15-20 that are a little more valuable than the rest. Keep in mind--there are schools that dominate their market (you are wrong there) and there are schools that have limited success for football---but are of great value for basketball. This is an all-sports conference and the idea is to create value where little exists currently. The Big East makes 4 million a team with NO football. There is value to be generated with basketball--especially when one realizes you cant make a football power conference out of spare G5 parts. You have to consider the entire package when building a nationwide all-sports G5 conference.

What you can do is bundle the best known G5 schools together. You can carefully cherry pick the largest budgets, the strongest G5 football programs, the most consistent G5 basketball programs---and cobble together a conference that can generate significant income from the revenue sports. You can get all the programs with a legitimate chance of averaging 40K a football game under one roof.

Something like this would be along the lines Im thinking of---

East--

UConn
Cincy
Temple
ECU
UCF
USF
Memphis
Navy


West

Boise
BYU
SDSU
Fresno
New Mexico
UNLV
Houston
SMU


Bascially, Im housing the best basketball and football under one roof. Your playing 8 games in the conference. Yes, UNLV, UConn, Memphis, Temple, and New Mexico are likely to be bad more often than good on the grid iron. So what? No matter the size of the conference--you are going to have bad teams at the bottom. At least with this configuration, your "bad" football teams are brining in NCAA credits in basketball season and making you league a valuable winter programming property. Everyone is bringing something to the table. The league earnings are maximized, there is no dead weight.

If you can get this conference to average 40K a game---you begin to begin scratching at the bottom of power conference territory---except this conference has a nationwide footprint. Plus, on day one, it's already a basketball power conference capable of landing 7-10 bids a year. That's a very nice property for any national cable sports network and will command a premium over the other smaller G5's that don't have near the name recognition, the facilities, the budgets, or the on-the-field strength of this grouping. Give this conference 2 6-year contracts and they will be generating half of what the power conferences earn---and nearly 5 times what the other G5's earn.

no where you and I differ is that if I was actually looking to set myself apart from something I would not attempt to do so by grouping myself up with those that are easily identified as what I am trying to set myself apart from

if I wanted to set myself apart from a larger group of 70+ schools that most people view the same the last thing I would do is group myself up with 22% to 28% of them and pretend that I was somehow in a different group especially when half of the group I was in could be easily interchanged with any of the others I was trying to set myself apart from

or when I could group up with 10% or 11% of those 70 and start beating down the remainder of those 70 regularly while not being weighed down by the other 12% to 18% that are regularly performing just like those I was trying to distance from

if you have 70 teams in 10 conferences of 7 and you are all playing games and you are trying to standout from those 70 and you want to be in a group that CLEARLY stands out from those 70 then you and the other 6 you are with can beat the other 63 or you can take the "poach" approach

and you can take the "top 3" from one other group of 7 and you can be in with 10 of the 70 then......and you can watch that group of 10 stratify over time......and then you can "improve yourself and your conference perception" by taking the top 3 from another group of 7.......and then you can watch your group of 13 stratify over time........so you poach 3 more "top teams" from another group of 7

and over time you and your "top conference" will be 20 teams that half or more of them suck and perform at a level lower than many other of the top teams in the remaining groups outside of your and then you can try and take some of the "top teams" from your group and a few others and reform again......and repeat over and over

or you can simply be smart enough to join up with 6 other teams that you know can beat up on the other 63 teams regularly, you can limit the number of games that you beat up on each other and you can set yourself apart as the elite 10% of that group of 70 instead of miring yourself as a good team in 20% or 30% of those 70 that is readily and easily associated with the 50% to 66% of the terrible teams in your "elite group" of schools

ditch that lower half to 1/3 and the 7 of you set yourself apart from the other 63.........when the only others available to your group of 7 will ALWAYS be readily identifiable with the others they do nothing to help your perception

and sitting around pretending they will elevate themselves when they have failed to do so for decades is just wasting YOUR TIME and YOUR REPUTATION because you do not have enough guts and enough backbone to go with a group that can truly set themselves apart.......you prefer to weigh yourself down with others pretending that somehow helps set you apart

(07-06-2014 10:31 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  there 2 major things your missing about 20 school national conf of G5
1st off you need bottom feeders [P5 has there share as well]
schools programs can also grow & conf consist of many variables

why that is a ridiculous and completely unsupported premise

if the SEC SEC SEC could get rid of Vandy Football, MSU Football and KU Football and instead play OOC games the reputation of the SEC SEC SEC would not suffer one bit and in fact it would increase

if the Big 10 was MSU, MU, tOSU, Penn State, NU, WU and then add in 2 of the rest and they were playing 7 conference games and 5 OOC games from a perception point of view that would be easily a better overall conference for football than what the Big 10 is currently

mixing in MN, IN, IL, Rutgers, Maryland, NW and all the other crap does nothing to make the Big 10 into an elite conference or to elevate their own the field performance

and I am sure some will wan to point out the TV dollars from the Big 10 and the fact that the Big 10 added two pieces of crap recently.......but again we are talking about the Big 10 that has just what those same people would bash upon and that is freeloading bottom feeders and a long history of getting paid more when they did not deserve it

the teams in the G5 do not have that and they will NEVER have that as long as they PRETEND and live in fairy land that they can somehow get a group together with 5-6 good teams and 10-14 pieces of crap and somehow get paid more and get a contract based on having a few good teams and bottom feeders........never mind that the freeloaders in the P5 are still able to compete with 90% of the G5 on a regular basis and it is only about 10% of the G5 that readily competes with and beats even the lower levels of the P5

again that is the laughable concept of teams in the G5 trying to elevate themselves by imitating the P5......getting the 7-8 teams together that compete with the lower levels of the P5 and then tacking on just as many of not more that regularly do not compete with the lower levels of the P5 and pretending that is a competitive conference or one that will be recognized

instead of having the testicular and intestinal fortitude to get together with the 7-8 teams that get it done and thumping the G5 teams regularly and competing with the lower P5 teams often and building to compete with the middle and higher P5 teams.......instead of for some wild reason pretending that 7-10 more teams that regularly perform just like all the bad G5 teams somehow is a benefit because it means you have your bottom feeders and begging bowl holders like the P5 does or pretending that the bottom feeders and begging bowl holders bring value to their P5 conference instead of bottom feeding it and begging bowling in it and dragging it down overall from an on the field perspective

What you are doing Is failing to recognize the reality of the situation. These are G5 schools. They will never generate the same value from football as the P5. Thus, basketball must be a major component of structuring the conference. By having a balance of both and by having a presence in larger footprint (more fanbases mean conference games are of interest to more people) the conference is more valuable. The old Big East had 8 members. It was the lowest paid of the AQ conferences---by a long shot. It was the only AQ conference that made more from basketball than football. If I remember correctly, the old Big East was only making a bit over 3 million a school from media vs 15-20 million a school for the other power conferences.

Part of the reason was they only had 8 football fanbases that were interested in thier games. The other conferences had 12 fanbases. Not shockingly, the Big East had the lowest cumulative audience totals o the AQ conferences So, not only did the Big East not have any "king" programs---they had fewer programs in general and were paid about 20% as much as than the other AQ conferences. Were it not for basketball, the Big East teams would not have earned much more than the better paid non-AQ's in media dollars. I see no inherent value in staying 8 for a G5 conference. The key is creating a balanced conference that is the most powerful G5 in football while also maintaining a position as a basketball power conference. It is alos important to gphavebenough fanbases involved to generate significant tan interest.

Establishing a league that is the strongest G5 football conference, thats a power G5 basketball conference--and a league that has a large enough fanbase----using only G5 schools......well, that will require more than 8 schools. It's really simple as that.

(07-07-2014 09:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  What you are doing Is failing to recognize the reality of the situation. These are G5 schools. They will never generate the same value from football as the P5. Thus, basketball must be a major component of structuring the conference. By having a balance of both and by having a presence in larger footprint (more fanbases mean conference games are of interest to more people) the conference is more valuable. The old Big East had 8 members. It was the lowest paid of the AQ conferences---by a long shot. It was the only AQ conference that made more from basketball than football. If I remember correctly, the old Big East was only making a bit over 3 million a school from media vs 15-20 million a school for the other power conferences.

Part of the reason was they only had 8 football fanbases that were interested in thier games. The other conferences had 12 fanbases. Not shockingly, the Big East had the lowest cumulative audience totals o the AQ conferences So, not only did the Big East not have any "king" programs---they had fewer programs in general and were paid about 20% as much as than the other AQ conferences. Were it not for basketball, the Big East teams would not have earned much more than the better paid non-AQ's in media dollars. I see no inherent value in staying 8 for a G5 conference. The key is creating a balanced conference that is the most powerful G5 in football while also maintaining a position as a basketball power conference. It is alos important to gphavebenough fanbases involved to generate significant tan interest.

Establishing a donference a the strongest G5 football conference, builiding a power G5 basketball conference, and building a large enough fanbase using only G5 schools will require more than 8 schools. It's really simple as that.

Wow Coog, you have really stepped off the deep-end pursuing this conversation. As much as any of us would like to mold reality into what we feel is the best situation given the circumstances, you really are doing little more than jousting at windmills here.

Moving G5's around, given one person's grand vision, is simply not the model that has ever been or ever will be used; there are simply too many moving pieces. It has always been a pecking order and as those stronger programs cared to add the future value of the additional revenue from nearby programs, they would do so.

And in the last 20 years of realignment I have seen nothing to persuade me otherwise.

(07-07-2014 10:18 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 09:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  What you are doing Is failing to recognize the reality of the situation. These are G5 schools. They will never generate the same value from football as the P5. Thus, basketball must be a major component of structuring the conference. By having a balance of both and by having a presence in larger footprint (more fanbases mean conference games are of interest to more people) the conference is more valuable. The old Big East had 8 members. It was the lowest paid of the AQ conferences---by a long shot. It was the only AQ conference that made more from basketball than football. If I remember correctly, the old Big East was only making a bit over 3 million a school from media vs 15-20 million a school for the other power conferences.

Part of the reason was they only had 8 football fanbases that were interested in thier games. The other conferences had 12 fanbases. Not shockingly, the Big East had the lowest cumulative audience totals o the AQ conferences So, not only did the Big East not have any "king" programs---they had fewer programs in general and were paid about 20% as much as than the other AQ conferences. Were it not for basketball, the Big East teams would not have earned much more than the better paid non-AQ's in media dollars. I see no inherent value in staying 8 for a G5 conference. The key is creating a balanced conference that is the most powerful G5 in football while also maintaining a position as a basketball power conference. It is alos important to have enough fanbases involved to generate significant tan interest.

Establishing a donference a the strongest G5 football conference, builiding a power G5 basketball conference, and building a large enough fanbase using only G5 schools will require more than 8 schools. It's really simple as that.

Wow Coog, you have really stepped off the deep-end pursuing this conversation. As much as any of us would like to mold reality into what we feel is the best situation given the circumstances, you really are doing little more than jousting at windmills here.

Moving G5's around, given one person's grand vision, is simply not the model that has ever been or ever will be used; there are simply too many moving pieces. It has always been a pecking order and as those stronger programs cared to add the future value of the additional revenue from nearby programs, they would do so.

And in the last 20 years of realignment I have seen nothing to persuade me otherwise.

In a few weeks the NCAA will vote to change the governance system giving the P5 autonomous powers in a large number of specific areas--including stipends, insurance, number of coaches, likeness use fees, extended educational opportunities, and athletic time demands (just to mention a few). The college landscape is changing rapidly. The income and perception gap between the P5 and G5 is large and has steadily grown over the last 2+ decades. In 1996 the better paid G5 schools were making about half what the power conference schools made in media income. Today they earn about 10% of the amount power schools earn. The G5 perception has also changed dramatically. In 1997, a 3-loss G5 school could be ranked 19th (S Miss). Yes--I said a THREE LOSS G5 school was ranked 19th. I don't think a 3-loss G5 could ever be ranked today. Think about those facts for a minute. From earning 50% of power conference money to 10% earnings in just 20 years. From a 3-loss G5 team ACTUALLY being ranked to "NO WAY a 3-loss G5 could be ranked"----in just 20 short years.

So, the reality is that whatever the G5 has been doing the last 20 years is largely irrelevant. It doesn't work. In fact---its been a disaster. Continuing on the same path will likely end up with the G5 playing in a new lower division that is separate from the P5. What Im suggesting is sort of radical---but not really. Something similar nearly happened already (the BE/AAC western expansion and the CUSA-MW merger). The next time around a handful of schools will realize it is their only chance to stay in the new upper tier of college football. With the new governance powers, the P5 has begun to lay the early groundwork to establish their own division. As that division becomes more apparent (probably 5-10 years down the road), that's when something like this will finally come to pass. Hopefully, it happens before its too late. Barring rescue by a P5 conference, it may be the last life raft for 20 or so G5 survivors. Or...G5 AD's can just keep doing what they have been doing---after all, its worked so well for the last 20 years.

(07-07-2014 09:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  What you are doing Is failing to recognize the reality of the situation. These are G5 schools. They will never generate the same value from football as the P5. Thus, basketball must be a major component of structuring the conference. By having a balance of both and by having a presence in larger footprint (more fanbases mean conference games are of interest to more people) the conference is more valuable. The old Big East had 8 members. It was the lowest paid of the AQ conferences---by a long shot. It was the only AQ conference that made more from basketball than football. If I remember correctly, the old Big East was only making a bit over 3 million a school from media vs 15-20 million a school for the other power conferences.

Part of the reason was they only had 8 football fanbases that were interested in thier games. The other conferences had 12 fanbases. Not shockingly, the Big East had the lowest cumulative audience totals o the AQ conferences So, not only did the Big East not have any "king" programs---they had fewer programs in general and were paid about 20% as much as than the other AQ conferences. Were it not for basketball, the Big East teams would not have earned much more than the better paid non-AQ's in media dollars. I see no inherent value in staying 8 for a G5 conference. The key is creating a balanced conference that is the most powerful G5 in football while also maintaining a position as a basketball power conference. It is alos important to gphavebenough fanbases involved to generate significant tan interest.

Establishing a league that is the strongest G5 football conference, thats a power G5 basketball conference--and a league that has a large enough fanbase----using only G5 schools......well, that will require more than 8 schools. It's really simple as that.

and what you are doing is taking a very short term and unrealistic view of things and you are trying to pretend that football is not what makes P5 VS G5

football is what drives the bus period

you are also ignoring the dramatic differences between football and basketball while taking a very short term and small time view of how to form a conference to try and make something of significance happen for the members based on group association

again football drives the bus period

after that simple REALITY there is the reality that in basketball you need substantially fewer players to significantly improve a program in a very short order

you are also ignoring that even at P5 conference schools with good to decent basketball football still drives the bus on revenues for the athletics program and often even some for basketball

you are ignoring the fact that in basketball you play a massive number of OOC games and that is what gives your CONFERENCE STRENGTH........that is why the Big 12 with 10 members was able to get 7 schools (70% of the conference) into the NCAA tournament and that is a conference that is not even traditionally known as a basketball conference

again THINK ABOUT THAT.......70% of the conference members were in the NCAA tournament.......and yet some of those conference members did not have that great of a record IN CONFERENCE.......AGAIN....THINK ABOUT THAT and how it relates to what I am saying about a conference of limited football membership playing MORE OOC GAMES

again think about basketball where conferences that ARE basketball conferences can have MANY teams coming into conference play with 1 loss or undefeated and then they play each other and even when they lose they only swap spots in the rankings with each other and then at the end of conference play a VERY LARGE % of them go to the NCAA tournament based on the fact that they had a ton of wins in the OOC and based on the fact that THEIR CONFERENCE MATES HAD A TON OF WINS IN THE OOC

so based on wins IN THE OOC the conference is viewed as strong even before they start to beat up in each other and based on OOC wins and a strong conference perception based on many conference members doing extremely well in the OOC they get a bunch of teams into the NCAAs

just like the same concept of limited conference play and MORE OOC play in football so your conference mates come into conference play 4-1 and 5-0 and ranked before they beat up on each other and then you have a very high % of conference members going to bowl games and if they win those and they have 9+ wins and the conference looks strong because of lots of bowl teams and lots of wins in the OOC against other conferences your teams with 9+ wins are ranked to end the year and you have several teams with 9+ wins

and then based on being ranked at the end of the last season you have a high % of teams ranked to start the next season.....and then they go and beat a bunch of teams from OTHER CONFERENCES and come into conference ranked and 4-1 and 5-0 and REPEAT

so again you have a VERY SHORT TERM VIEW OF THINGS and you have a very small view of what makes a conference that will be viewed as well above the other G5 conferences and closer to a P5 conference and you fail to understand that basketball can be a revenue sport and a conference builder, but you do not bog your conference down with basketball only schools and D1-A football junk when you are trying to be viewed as above the G5

you instead get a VERY LIMITED number of programs that can compete in football and that have strong athletics programs and then you allow then to schedule IN THE OOC to meet their needs be it wins or be it respect from beating top P5 schools and you do this in FOOTBALL AND BASKETBALL and then you bring that strength of winning into conference play.....EXACTLY the way that strong basketball conferences do it

so again LIMITED VERY STRONG FOOTBALL programs and then allow them to schedule how they need to in the OOC as the conference builds in both football and basketball and when you win over time you start to be viewed as a winner and then is the time when people say "well you are beating garbage" so you slowly ramp up your schedule as you recruit players that like to WIN and that have a bit of an attitude and then you pull off some bigger wins in the OOC and repeat

instead of weighting yourself down with programs that will not get it done in the primary sport of football because they are good at basketball when football drives the bus and while ignoring that you become good in basketball and as a conference in basketball based as much or more than anything based on OOC wins and pretending that can't translate to football

(07-07-2014 01:27 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-07-2014 09:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  What you are doing Is failing to recognize the reality of the situation. These are G5 schools. They will never generate the same value from football as the P5. Thus, basketball must be a major component of structuring the conference. By having a balance of both and by having a presence in larger footprint (more fanbases mean conference games are of interest to more people) the conference is more valuable. The old Big East had 8 members. It was the lowest paid of the AQ conferences---by a long shot. It was the only AQ conference that made more from basketball than football. If I remember correctly, the old Big East was only making a bit over 3 million a school from media vs 15-20 million a school for the other power conferences.

Part of the reason was they only had 8 football fanbases that were interested in thier games. The other conferences had 12 fanbases. Not shockingly, the Big East had the lowest cumulative audience totals o the AQ conferences So, not only did the Big East not have any "king" programs---they had fewer programs in general and were paid about 20% as much as than the other AQ conferences. Were it not for basketball, the Big East teams would not have earned much more than the better paid non-AQ's in media dollars. I see no inherent value in staying 8 for a G5 conference. The key is creating a balanced conference that is the most powerful G5 in football while also maintaining a position as a basketball power conference. It is alos important to gphavebenough fanbases involved to generate significant tan interest.

Establishing a league that is the strongest G5 football conference, thats a power G5 basketball conference--and a league that has a large enough fanbase----using only G5 schools......well, that will require more than 8 schools. It's really simple as that.

and what you are doing is taking a very short term and unrealistic view of things and you are trying to pretend that football is not what makes P5 VS G5

football is what drives the bus period

you are also ignoring the dramatic differences between football and basketball while taking a very short term and small time view of how to form a conference to try and make something of significance happen for the members based on group association

again football drives the bus period

after that simple REALITY there is the reality that in basketball you need substantially fewer players to significantly improve a program in a very short order

you are also ignoring that even at P5 conference schools with good to decent basketball football still drives the bus on revenues for the athletics program and often even some for basketball

you are ignoring the fact that in basketball you play a massive number of OOC games and that is what gives your CONFERENCE STRENGTH........that is why the Big 12 with 10 members was able to get 7 schools (70% of the conference) into the NCAA tournament and that is a conference that is not even traditionally known as a basketball conference

again THINK ABOUT THAT.......70% of the conference members were in the NCAA tournament.......and yet some of those conference members did not have that great of a record IN CONFERENCE.......AGAIN....THINK ABOUT THAT and how it relates to what I am saying about a conference of limited football membership playing MORE OOC GAMES

again think about basketball where conferences that ARE basketball conferences can have MANY teams coming into conference play with 1 loss or undefeated and then they play each other and even when they lose they only swap spots in the rankings with each other and then at the end of conference play a VERY LARGE % of them go to the NCAA tournament based on the fact that they had a ton of wins in the OOC and based on the fact that THEIR CONFERENCE MATES HAD A TON OF WINS IN THE OOC

so based on wins IN THE OOC the conference is viewed as strong even before they start to beat up in each other and based on OOC wins and a strong conference perception based on many conference members doing extremely well in the OOC they get a bunch of teams into the NCAAs

just like the same concept of limited conference play and MORE OOC play in football so your conference mates come into conference play 4-1 and 5-0 and ranked before they beat up on each other and then you have a very high % of conference members going to bowl games and if they win those and they have 9+ wins and the conference looks strong because of lots of bowl teams and lots of wins in the OOC against other conferences your teams with 9+ wins are ranked to end the year and you have several teams with 9+ wins

and then based on being ranked at the end of the last season you have a high % of teams ranked to start the next season.....and then they go and beat a bunch of teams from OTHER CONFERENCES and come into conference ranked and 4-1 and 5-0 and REPEAT

so again you have a VERY SHORT TERM VIEW OF THINGS and you have a very small view of what makes a conference that will be viewed as well above the other G5 conferences and closer to a P5 conference and you fail to understand that basketball can be a revenue sport and a conference builder, but you do not bog your conference down with basketball only schools and D1-A football junk when you are trying to be viewed as above the G5

you instead get a VERY LIMITED number of programs that can compete in football and that have strong athletics programs and then you allow then to schedule IN THE OOC to meet their needs be it wins or be it respect from beating top P5 schools and you do this in FOOTBALL AND BASKETBALL and then you bring that strength of winning into conference play.....EXACTLY the way that strong basketball conferences do it

so again LIMITED VERY STRONG FOOTBALL programs and then allow them to schedule how they need to in the OOC as the conference builds in both football and basketball and when you win over time you start to be viewed as a winner and then is the time when people say "well you are beating garbage" so you slowly ramp up your schedule as you recruit players that like to WIN and that have a bit of an attitude and then you pull off some bigger wins in the OOC and repeat

instead of weighting yourself down with programs that will not get it done in the primary sport of football because they are good at basketball when football drives the bus and while ignoring that you become good in basketball and as a conference in basketball based as much or more than anything based on OOC wins and pretending that can't translate to football

Well, I don't agree with much of what you have stated here--but lets just say you are not looking very closely at recent history. There is a reason short term thinking is important. As I have stated multiple times---I think the amount of time to be included in a coming new higher level of football is short. Any best-of-the-rest G5 conference must hit the ground running as a power in both football and basketball. There is no time to "wait for basketball to develop". Besides, historical powers do have value beyond just being good in any given year. Football has certainly taught us that. The same is true to a slightly lesser extent in basketball.

Second--small 8 team G5 FBS conferences have been quite unstable of late. The last two have imploded. The 8 team Big East split into two separate conferences with the reconstituted football side being severely devalued in the process. The WAC simply no longer exists as a football entity.

Look, nothing is going to happen along these lines for some time---so, we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

TodgeRodge is still the maniac on the corner with sandwich board placard. Cool!

What else is going on? :D

(07-08-2014 06:42 AM)panama Wrote:  TodgeRodge is still the maniac on the corner with sandwich board placard. Cool!

I picture him more as a retired guy in his boxers, cigar dangling from mouth, dictating messages to his devoted, if somewhat dim witted wife, who puts her old career as a typist to work in transcribing his lengthy entries. I imagine the phrase "read that back to me Alice" at the end of all his posts.

If SEC jetsion 4 schools, that does't make Ark, Auburn, So Car & Missouri bottomfeeders.
you don't make tourn at 2-14 in conf play, either.
Todd, I looked at ur 8, you can't leave off
CONN, market-men's champ, women's champ. the women team will make everybody step up.
you need other streams of revenue till FB builds up, & Conn held it's own in BE FB
SMU, had pedigree before death penalty, you need schools where the players are.
Memphis, you need BB tournament
New Mexico, recruiting in Cali & Tex, they can become another Nebraska [NM has slighty Lg population]
SDST, you need players
Buffalo, Bills move will help this program, How can u have national conf & ingnor 3 Lgest state

(07-08-2014 07:51 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  If SEC jetsion 4 schools, that does't make Ark, Auburn, So Car & Missouri bottomfeeders.
you don't make tourn at 2-14 in conf play, either.
Todd, I looked at ur 8, you can't leave off
CONN, market-men's champ, women's champ. the women team will make everybody step up.
you need other streams of revenue till FB builds up, & Conn held it's own in BE FB
SMU, had pedigree before death penalty, you need schools where the players are.
Memphis, you need BB tournament
New Mexico, recruiting in Cali & Tex, they can become another Nebraska [NM has slighty Lg population]
SDST, you need players
Buffalo, Bills move will help this program, How can u have national conf & ingnor 3 Lgest state

I think you can argue that SMU had pedigree only because of the things they were doing that led to that death penalty.

[/b]"using only G5 schools"[/b]

One reason why fans disagree about topics like this is that we are sometimes careless with our use of labels. Schools aren't P5 or G5. Only conferences are. There are some schools in P5 conferences that are less "worthy" of inclusion than some schools in G5 conferences. I doubt we'll ever get around that. Is that "fair"? I would ask is "fair" relevant?

Schools associate athletically with other schools for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes, those reasons cease to be meaningful, but traditional, political and legal reasons still hold them together. I can't imagine that the ACC would invite Wake Forest to join today if they weren't already a member. Frankly, if they hadn't been a member I'm not sure Wake Forest would be the university it is today. They might still be a tiny religious school located a few miles north of Raleigh. But history happened, and you can't undo it.

The entire question of who "should" be in a P5 conference misses the whole point. "Should" has nothing to do with it.