Does it automatically elevate a conference over the conference losing a school ?

I would think the best way for the AAC to clearly become conference number six is to raid the MWC.
The Sun Belt or MAC could raid each other down the road.
Obviously the SBC has seven new football members and needs time to grow before raiding anyone.
The MAC has never pulled a team from another conference.
The T.V. contracts aside because no one knows the future I could see more positioning.

C-USA is considered better than the Sun Belt but going forward look to be pretty even competitively. Six years from now the bowl tie ins and TV money will probably be close . The fact C-USA took SBC schools will be harder to overcome perception wise.

(07-06-2014 09:51 AM)MJG Wrote:  Does it automatically elevate a conference over the conference losing a school ?

I would think the best way for the AAC to clearly become conference number six is to raid the MWC.
The Sun Belt or MAC could raid each other down the road.
Obviously the SBC has seven new football members and needs time to grow before raiding anyone.
The MAC has never pulled a team from another conference.
The T.V. contracts aside because no one knows the future I could see more positioning.

C-USA is considered better than the Sun Belt but going forward look to be pretty even competitively. Six years from now the bowl tie ins and TV money will probably be close . The fact C-USA took SBC schools will be harder to overcome perception wise.

Barring a NEED for new members from above, I think much of this will have settled down. Here's why

1) The NCAA provided an incentive to penalize G5 conferences with too many members

2) The AAC and MWC are full and appear to be stablizing,

3) There really are few teams that are currently FBS that would seriously consider a MAC bid. The MAC is at 12 members.

4) Rivalries in CUSA appear to block much more SBC poaching. And CUSA is already full. Actually it has too many members

5) The existance of three FBS independents might cause any 'poaching' scenarios to stop cascading before impacting all the FBS conferences. Say for example, The Big XII takes Cincy and BYU. The AAC could backfill with Army or UMass, thus ending the cycle before it hits anyone else.

6) Rules prohibiting a 10 team conference from holding a CCG appear to be on their way out.

7) Grant of Rights are getting bigger. Its expensive to move.

8) Jockeying between conferences for positioning, especially at the top, where you have 5 conferences expecting a slot in the Playoffs every year will make most additions from the P5 seem to be less likely.

-------

I actually think CUSA might do better than the Belt next year, as the Belt takes on 4 moveup/troubled programs and CUSA only takes one moveup. But App and Ga Southern will probably be up to speed in short order.

-------

As far as perception goes, it is what it is. The Sun Belt was awful (of course mainly with teams now in CUSA) in the early 2000's, even having years where they didn't win one single OOC FBS game. While that was going on, CUSA was quite strong (albeit with members primarily in the AAC or even the Big XII and ACC). There's nothing the Belt can do about our past, or about CUSA's past. But we're doing what we need to be doing.

Now if we can fix our TV contract and basketball.....

There are too many variables in your question. You would have to evaluate the school that is moving and both conferences.

I think the AAC has had their fill of the MWC. Boise's spin on the conference merry-go-round has cost them a bunch of money to wind up right where they started.

We may see some movement at the Sun Belt or CUSA level but nothing serious.

the way for a conference to be relevant it to win games against teams in other conferences period

the more teams you add to your conference the harder this will be for the entire conference to carry out

if the teams that are currently in a conference cannot accomplish this then adding more teams that you believe can accomplish that really only weakens those new teams

the SEC SEC SEC is viewed as strong because over recent or semi-recent history Florida, LSU, Alabama and Auburn have all won MNCs and even Tennessee won one a while back and Georgia and Arkansas have played in BCS games so that is 7 out of the 12 teams that were in the conference over the past few years

sure if you added half of those teams to another conference it would improve that conference, but if you added them to the CUSA it would not make the other teams in the CUSA better and it would surely not make those added look any stronger and over time it would probably make then look weaker

and reality says there are not 5-6 teams of that calibre available and there are not two teams of that calibre available or really even one......so there are no teams available that can be added to any conference currently especially a non-P5 one that will suddenly make the conference significantly better on the whole especially in perceived reputation much less actual strength or that over time that strength would increase VS decrease

fewer teams, fewer conference games, more OOC games, more OOC wins, more teams making bowl games, more teams winning bowl games and more teams ending up ranked to end the season and start the next season

getting to 14, 16, 20, 24, 30 teams is just a stupid idea and really for G5 conferences going to 12 teams was a stupid idea......no one, no team and no conference gains respect by increasing the crap they are associated with and the more teams you have in your conference as a G5 team and conference the much higher likelihood that you will have more crap because the reason that teams are in the G5 is because they don't win, don't bring the fans and don't have the financial support

and sure some have been able to move up and beyond that, but they did not do it because recruits and players said "dude brah that conference has like 24 teams in all those markets where no one shows up to watch games"

or "brocephus if I go there I can play some of those schools NEVER in the entire 5 years I am a player there because that conference has 18 teams and the rotation of them means that some play every other decade"

or "dayng main if I go to that school in that conference I can play 11 games against teams that no one watches and when the season is over we will maybe have beaten one team from another conference and thus we will be irrelevant to the national picture because essentially we are our own NCAA division playing one money game against the other 100 D1-A programs while we are in the de facto conference X division......where can I sign up for THAT......yea for self imposed irrelevance!"

so FEWER teams that all believe in each other going out and proving it against everyone else is the only answer........more teams and especially more games against your own conference members is just moving closer towards no one caring outside of your own conference and no way to remotely claim that you can compete with other conferences because you have not played them nearly enough while you focused on adding a ton of teams and handing each other losses in conference games

The only thing going forward is can your team beat the teams they play and not what conference they are in.

Being in a P5 Conference does not give a team any better chance of being successful than being in a G5.

About half the teams in both are destined to be also ran's almost every year.

Went through this same type of discussions when the BCS era started, and it was going to be the end of the smaller programs and every AQ school was going to be better than every non-aq, and that will not happen.

Fans talk about wins and losses and whether a certain program is relevant or irrelevant for the purposes of determining its value to a conference.

Administrators, TV people and executives talk about the political power and potential value added to a conference.

Therein lies the dissidence between the two viewpoints.

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.

(07-06-2014 11:35 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the way for a conference to be relevant it to win games against teams in other conferences period

the more teams you add to your conference the harder this will be for the entire conference to carry out

if the teams that are currently in a conference cannot accomplish this then adding more teams that you believe can accomplish that really only weakens those new teams

the SEC SEC SEC is viewed as strong because over recent or semi-recent history Florida, LSU, Alabama and Auburn have all won MNCs and even Tennessee won one a while back and Georgia and Arkansas have played in BCS games so that is 7 out of the 12 teams that were in the conference over the past few years

sure if you added half of those teams to another conference it would improve that conference, but if you added them to the CUSA it would not make the other teams in the CUSA better and it would surely not make those added look any stronger and over time it would probably make then look weaker

and reality says there are not 5-6 teams of that calibre available and there are not two teams of that calibre available or really even one......so there are no teams available that can be added to any conference currently especially a non-P5 one that will suddenly make the conference significantly better on the whole especially in perceived reputation much less actual strength or that over time that strength would increase VS decrease

fewer teams, fewer conference games, more OOC games, more OOC wins, more teams making bowl games, more teams winning bowl games and more teams ending up ranked to end the season and start the next season

getting to 14, 16, 20, 24, 30 teams is just a stupid idea and really for G5 conferences going to 12 teams was a stupid idea......no one, no team and no conference gains respect by increasing the crap they are associated with and the more teams you have in your conference as a G5 team and conference the much higher likelihood that you will have more crap because the reason that teams are in the G5 is because they don't win, don't bring the fans and don't have the financial support

and sure some have been able to move up and beyond that, but they did not do it because recruits and players said "dude brah that conference has like 24 teams in all those markets where no one shows up to watch games"

or "brocephus if I go there I can play some of those schools NEVER in the entire 5 years I am a player there because that conference has 18 teams and the rotation of them means that some play every other decade"

or "dayng main if I go to that school in that conference I can play 11 games against teams that no one watches and when the season is over we will maybe have beaten one team from another conference and thus we will be irrelevant to the national picture because essentially we are our own NCAA division playing one money game against the other 100 D1-A programs while we are in the de facto conference X division......where can I sign up for THAT......yea for self imposed irrelevance!"

so FEWER teams that all believe in each other going out and proving it against everyone else is the only answer........more teams and especially more games against your own conference members is just moving closer towards no one caring outside of your own conference and no way to remotely claim that you can compete with other conferences because you have not played them nearly enough while you focused on adding a ton of teams and handing each other losses in conference games

Silly thesis. Bigger the conference, the more conference games. Conference games are a zero sum game---for every winner, there is a loser. Someone will excel--someone will suck. Bottom line, even in a big G5 conference---someone is going to look impressive.

The fact is, scheduling P5 schools is about to get harder. Most P-5 conferences have gone to a 9 game schedule--some have even added the requirement to schedule at least on P5 in their OOC--thus tying up 10 games. The universe of possible G5 vs P5 games is shrinking--not expanding. It does no good to shrink your G5 conference schedule if the reality is you will simply have to schedule more G5 OOC games.

As for the value of overly large G5 conferences---I disagree. I think it has far less to do with quantity than it does with quality. There are probably 10-20 fairly well known upwardly mobile names in the G5 world. Because the P5 got first pick, these 10-20 well known names are scattered across the entire nation and are not really geographically concentrated. So, the popular choice has been to grab 3-5 well known G5's in a general area and fill in the rest with much less well known smaller schools to create a G5 conference. We have seen over the last 50 years that these conferences have little value for networks and the gap between the G5 value and the P5 value continues to grow. I'd say the old G5 model has failed. The old model has certainly failed to keep up---falling further and further behind in not just real live dollars---but even in terms of a percentage. The best G5 conferences used to make about 50% as much as the P5 conferences. Now that number is closer to 10%. Unless that dynamic changes, at some point, a split will occur between the two groups due to the financial differences. That's a fact. Its just a matter of how long it will take to happen.

The remaining option is for all the top G5's to unite under under a single conference banner---geography be d@mned. Yes it will be an oversized conference stretching from one coast to the other. Still, it would be a nationwide conference containing all the most well known and followed G5's that provides a rooting interest for virtually any area of the country. Given that most national cable sports networks broadcast the same game to the entire nation---why not create a league that includes every corner of the nation and contains the most well known names in the G5 universe.

Is this a P5 conference? Nope. Would this be the highest quality, most watched, most well known, most highly valued G5 conference? I'd say without a doubt it would be. It would also have a pretty decent chance of being included in any future G4 breakaway---and to me, that's the next big hurdle to clear. Im not really that worried about beating the Sunbelt or the MAC---Im more worried about being included in the next version of top level of football (D4) that is surely coming over the horizon. If I was a G5 AD, that's what I would be aiming for.

(07-06-2014 01:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Silly thesis. Bigger the conference, the more conference games. Conference games are a zero sum game---for every winner, there is a loser. Someone will excel--some will populate the basement. Bottom line, even in a big G5 conference---someone is going to look impressive.

The fact is, scheduling P5 schools is about to get harder. Most P-5 conferences have gone to a 9 game schedule--some have even added the requirement to schedule at least on P5 in their OOC--thus tying up 10 games. The universe of possible G5-P5 games is shrinking--not expanding. It does no good to shrink you G5 conference schedule--if the reality is you will simply have to schedule more G5 OOC games.

As for the value of overly large G5 conferences---I disagree. I think it far less to do with quantity than it does with quantity. There are probably 10-20 fairly well known names in the G5 world. Because the P5 got first pick, these 10-20 well known names are scattered across the entire nation and are not really geographically concentrated. So, the popular choice has been to grab 3-5 in a general area and fill in the rest with much less well known smaller schools to create a G5 conference. We have seen over the last 50 years that these conferences have little value for networks and the gap between the G5 value and the P5 value continues to grow. I'd say the old G5 model has failed.

The remaining option is for all the top G5's to under under a single conference banner---geography be d@mned. Yes its an oversized conference stretching from one coast to the other. Its also a nationwide conference containing all the most well known and followed G5's that provides a rooting interest fro virtually any area of the country. Given that most national cable sports networks broadcast the same game to the entire nation---why not create a league that includes every corner of the nation and contains the most well known names in the G5 universe.

Is this a P5 conference/ Nope. Would this be the highest quality, most watched, most well known, most highly valued G5 conference? I'd say without a doubt it would be. It would also have a pretty decent chance of being included in any future G4 breakaway---and to me, that's the next big hurdle to clear. Im not really that worried about beating the Sunbelt or the MAC---Im more worried about being included in the next version of top level of football (D4) that is surely coming over the horizon. If I was a G5 AD, that's what I would be aiming for.

the only silly thesis is one that starts out with the theory that one looks like a winner by hanging out with losers.......all else fails from there on period

and a conference that has a national covering of mostly losers is a loser.....period

Fresno, Boise and TCU and several other examples did not get to where they were because they had a big bunch of losers at the bottom of the conference making them "look good" they got there because they invested in their programs

in 2011 the MWC was 8 teams and TCU played 7 conference games and 5 OOC games

Baylor (who was better than most of the MWC by a long shot), ULM that was 4-8 but still had a better ending record than 3 MWC teams, SMU that beat TCU and that was 8-5 that year, D1-AA Portland State and BYU

so TCU was able to find all they needed between 7 conference games and 5 OOC games to end the season 11-2 and #14

Boise was 12-1 and #8 and had Georgia, Toledo, Tulsa, Nevada and Fresno.....so again they did not need losers dragging them down to "look good"

of those 8 teams 5 went to bowl games.....that looks a hell of a lot better than 14 teams with 7 going to bowl games like CUSA last year and with an added conference game that probably would have been 5 going to bowl games

or even the current MWC with 12 teams and 7 were bowl eligible and only 6 went

2012 MWC with 10 teams still smart enough to play only 8 conference and 4 OOC

Boise.....MSU, MU(OH), BYU, USM and went 3-1 and #18

Fresno.....Weber State, CU, Tulsa and Oregon and went 2-2 and 9-4 overall, but unranked

but only 5 of the 10 teams went to bowl games just like an 8 team MWC the year before......so one more conference game and two more teams neither going to a bowl game......so much for looking good

you talk about how tough it will be to get OOC games.....well for one the SEC and ACC are sticking with 8 games.....BYU needs games and as of now the Big 10 is at 8 conference games this year as well

and then the real failed part of your "thesis"........the idea that to get games against other crap you need them in your conference as conference mates and to be associated with you and to have that guaranteed LOSS to be a LOSER to (in your pretend world) "make YOU look good"......as if being tied to LOSERS makes YOU look good......that crap stays in the MAC or the CUSA or elsewhere so when you schedule them and beat them they take their loser ass back where they came from and they can use that LOSS to "make THEIR conference "look good""......oh wait they LOST.....so that looks like CRAP......which is why you do NOT bind yourself to them......you beat them and tell them to piss off and go away along with their markets that they do not deliver because they LOSE OFTEN and thus NO ONE CARES ABOUT THEM

what kind of loser mentality WANTS to bind themselves with LOSERS and with guaranteed losses in the failed idea of "looking better"

what an asinine concept

(07-06-2014 02:34 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 01:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Silly thesis. Bigger the conference, the more conference games. Conference games are a zero sum game---for every winner, there is a loser. Someone will excel--some will populate the basement. Bottom line, even in a big G5 conference---someone is going to look impressive.

The fact is, scheduling P5 schools is about to get harder. Most P-5 conferences have gone to a 9 game schedule--some have even added the requirement to schedule at least on P5 in their OOC--thus tying up 10 games. The universe of possible G5-P5 games is shrinking--not expanding. It does no good to shrink you G5 conference schedule--if the reality is you will simply have to schedule more G5 OOC games.

As for the value of overly large G5 conferences---I disagree. I think it far less to do with quantity than it does with quantity. There are probably 10-20 fairly well known names in the G5 world. Because the P5 got first pick, these 10-20 well known names are scattered across the entire nation and are not really geographically concentrated. So, the popular choice has been to grab 3-5 in a general area and fill in the rest with much less well known smaller schools to create a G5 conference. We have seen over the last 50 years that these conferences have little value for networks and the gap between the G5 value and the P5 value continues to grow. I'd say the old G5 model has failed.

The remaining option is for all the top G5's to under under a single conference banner---geography be d@mned. Yes its an oversized conference stretching from one coast to the other. Its also a nationwide conference containing all the most well known and followed G5's that provides a rooting interest fro virtually any area of the country. Given that most national cable sports networks broadcast the same game to the entire nation---why not create a league that includes every corner of the nation and contains the most well known names in the G5 universe.

Is this a P5 conference/ Nope. Would this be the highest quality, most watched, most well known, most highly valued G5 conference? I'd say without a doubt it would be. It would also have a pretty decent chance of being included in any future G4 breakaway---and to me, that's the next big hurdle to clear. Im not really that worried about beating the Sunbelt or the MAC---Im more worried about being included in the next version of top level of football (D4) that is surely coming over the horizon. If I was a G5 AD, that's what I would be aiming for.

the only silly thesis is one that starts out with the theory that one looks like a winner by hanging out with losers.......all else fails from there on period

and a conference that has a national covering of mostly losers is a loser.....period

Fresno, Boise and TCU and several other examples did not get to where they were because they had a big bunch of losers at the bottom of the conference making them "look good" they got there because they invested in their programs

in 2011 the MWC was 8 teams and TCU played 7 conference games and 5 OOC games

Baylor (who was better than most of the MWC by a long shot), ULM that was 4-8 but still had a better ending record than 3 MWC teams, SMU that beat TCU and that was 8-5 that year, D1-AA Portland State and BYU

so TCU was able to find all they needed between 7 conference games and 5 OOC games to end the season 11-2 and #14

Boise was 12-1 and #8 and had Georgia, Toledo, Tulsa, Nevada and Fresno.....so again they did not need losers dragging them down to "look good"

of those 8 teams 5 went to bowl games.....that looks a hell of a lot better than 14 teams with 7 going to bowl games like CUSA last year and with an added conference game that probably would have been 5 going to bowl games

or even the current MWC with 12 teams and 7 were bowl eligible and only 6 went

2012 MWC with 10 teams still smart enough to play only 8 conference and 4 OOC

Boise.....MSU, MU(OH), BYU, USM and went 3-1 and #18

Fresno.....Weber State, CU, Tulsa and Oregon and went 2-2 and 9-4 overall, but unranked

but only 5 of the 10 teams went to bowl games just like an 8 team MWC the year before......so one more conference game and two more teams neither going to a bowl game......so much for looking good

you talk about how tough it will be to get OOC games.....well for one the SEC and ACC are sticking with 8 games.....BYU needs games and as of now the Big 10 is at 8 conference games this year as well

and then the real failed part of your "thesis"........the idea that to get games against other crap you need them in your conference as conference mates and to be associated with you and to have that guaranteed LOSS to be a LOSER to (in your pretend world) "make YOU look good"......as if being tied to LOSERS makes YOU look good......that crap stays in the MAC or the CUSA or elsewhere so when you schedule them and beat them they take their loser ass back where they came from and they can use that LOSS to "make THEIR conference "look good""......oh wait they LOST.....so that looks like CRAP......which is why you do NOT bind yourself to them......you beat them and tell them to piss off and go away along with their markets that they do not deliver because they LOSE OFTEN and thus NO ONE CARES ABOUT THEM

what kind of loser mentality WANTS to bind themselves with LOSERS and with guaranteed losses in the failed idea of "looking better"

what an asinine concept

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 (in fact, some might not even make the cut) 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. I couldn't have selected better examples myself. 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.

Here is the EXACT type of OOC I would expect (along with the expected result) if you were a member of a best-of-the-rest conference. NIU's 2012 schedule.

NIU 2012

OOC-Iowa, Kansas, Army, Tenn Martin. Played TWO power conference schools. Finished ranked #15 and was a BCS buster. No reason you cant have a 16 team best-of-the-rest conference that plays an 8 game schedule. You would continue to have 4 OOC games, 2 of which could be against P5 schools, an FCS, and the rest against the best known, best supported, highest budget G5 schools in the nation. Not one thing you have presented would indicate such a conference would not be a quantum leap ahead of the current conference structures. You said you don't want to be tied to "losers"----well, Im suggesting a conference made of the highest quality best supported G5 programs available. How is that "binding" yourself to losers? Im suggesting binding yourself to the finest G5 programs available.

The MAC pulled NIU back in from the Big West so I wouldn't say that is entirely inaccurate.

The AAC isn't likely to be successful at raiding the MWC. The MWC's members are very like-minded. If BYU doesn't rejoin them, I could see the MWC adding another school from out west or Texas. Or the Dakotas. All are hoping/positioning for a PAC or B12 invite, not a horizontal move, with higher travel time and cost, to the AAC or similar.

The AAC is more likely to look east, e.g., in the C-USA.

The MWC and AAC make for a good competitive pair -- East vs. West. They should do more bowl games, etc.

(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

(07-06-2014 04:21 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  The AAC isn't likely to be successful at raiding the MWC. The MWC's members are very like-minded. If BYU doesn't rejoin them, I could see the MWC adding another school from out west or Texas. Or the Dakotas. All are hoping/positioning for a PAC or B12 invite, not a horizontal move, with higher travel time and cost, to the AAC or similar.

The AAC is more likely to look east, e.g., in the C-USA.

The MWC and AAC make for a good competitive pair -- East vs. West. They should do more bowl games, etc.

I don't forsee any further AAC additions coming from CUSA. The AAC already takes enough heat for looking too much like CUSA. They won't add just to get bigger. Moving west and adding quality teams makes some sense. Busting adding more CUSA makes no sense.

(07-06-2014 04:56 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 04:21 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  The AAC isn't likely to be successful at raiding the MWC. The MWC's members are very like-minded. If BYU doesn't rejoin them, I could see the MWC adding another school from out west or Texas. Or the Dakotas. All are hoping/positioning for a PAC or B12 invite, not a horizontal move, with higher travel time and cost, to the AAC or similar.

The AAC is more likely to look east, e.g., in the C-USA.

The MWC and AAC make for a good competitive pair -- East vs. West. They should do more bowl games, etc.

I don't forsee any further AAC additions coming from CUSA. The AAC already takes enough heat for looking too much like CUSA. They won't add just to get bigger. Moving west and adding quality teams makes some sense. Busting adding more CUSA makes no sense.

Yea, I don't see much more movement unless they are raided from above. They'd take BYU if BYU were interested, but BYU isn't interested at this point.

(07-06-2014 03:46 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The MAC pulled NIU back in from the Big West so I wouldn't say that is entirely inaccurate.

NIU was a football-only member of the BW.

(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?

(07-06-2014 12:20 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  The only thing going forward is can your team beat the teams they play and not what conference they are in.

Being in a P5 Conference does not give a team any better chance of being successful than being in a G5.

About half the teams in both are destined to be also ran's almost every year.

Went through this same type of discussions when the BCS era started, and it was going to be the end of the smaller programs and every AQ school was going to be better than every non-aq, and that will not happen.

"Successful" how? The discussion here seems to use the word to indicate the FB won/lost record. That certainly matters. But there is a change coming when the P5 separate themselves from the NCAA. Stipends are just the beginning. They will be free to determine their own limits on scholarships and countless other expenditures. The recent statements by Boise's AD reveals his fear that his school will not be able to follow the P5 schools to the new organization. Success will be measured more and more by earned revenue. (Cable TV matters)
Take a look, sometime, at the revenue sources for G5 programs. In the MAC, all of the programs are funded primarily by supplements from the universities. The "best" is Toledo, who only gets 52% from the school. The others range higher to Eastern Michigan at 82%. Will these administrations continue to support programs at ever-increasing pricetags? Recruiting for these schools will dwindle. There may be many who withdraw from Div I competition. G5 schools will struggle.

If New Mexico actually decided it wanted to play football, they could get into the PAC14.
If Boise State could switch the academic side with Idaho and get all of the research projects, they could get into the PAC14.
If UNLV actually decided it wanted to play football, they could get into the PAC14.
If Hawaii wasnt so far away, they could get into the PAC14.

(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.