(03-16-2015 09:03 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  I've posted this elsewhere but I think that UConn, Cincy, BYU, and Boise St. do need to align and form the core of a new conference. That way they can start over with media rights and bowl contracts. I'd start with 8 members for now.

UConn
Cincy
BYU
Boise St.
Memphis
UCF
SMU
UNLV

Maybe add a 9th to make scheduling easier but I'm not sure who I'd want. That would be a balanced league in football and hoops. 5 of the 8 have been in BCS bowls, or the equivalent. 3 have won NCAA championships in hoops. There is a good amount of NCAA tourney history there. I don't know. I don't think the AAC is going to work though.

No I don't think the AAC is going to work. Taking the best most marketable programs out of the AAC and MWC and adding in BYU might bring in enough interest to add a few bucks to the tv contract. I'd love to see this happen short of a legit P5 (aka Big 12) invite for Memphis.

(03-16-2015 10:43 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 09:03 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  I've posted this elsewhere but I think that UConn, Cincy, BYU, and Boise St. do need to align and form the core of a new conference. That way they can start over with media rights and bowl contracts. I'd start with 8 members for now.

UConn
Cincy
BYU
Boise St.
Memphis
UCF
SMU
UNLV

Maybe add a 9th to make scheduling easier but I'm not sure who I'd want. That would be a balanced league in football and hoops. 5 of the 8 have been in BCS bowls, or the equivalent. 3 have won NCAA championships in hoops. There is a good amount of NCAA tourney history there. I don't know. I don't think the AAC is going to work though.

No I don't think the AAC is going to work. Taking the best most marketable programs out of the AAC and MWC and adding in BYU might bring in enough interest to add a few bucks to the tv contract. I'd love to see this happen short of a legit P5 (aka Big 12) invite for Memphis.

Big Money loser for BYU

(03-16-2015 05:26 PM)BE4neva Wrote:  Cincy and UConn are the 2 biggest brands in college sports in general besides BYU with BSU in that top 4 also among the non power 5 schools. What happened this weekend sealed the deal IMHO. It's not that UConn didn't get in or Cincys seed. It's the overall disrespect for the AAC that will ultimately cause those 2 to leave. Right now they are getting the buyout money so they are getting north of 6 mil a year which isn't great but it's better than just the simple AAC deal. That doesn't last much longer. The solution isn't dropping football or joining the Mac or any of those crazy answers. It's not going independent either. Those are not realistic for the 2 schools who are trying to get into the ACC/b1g.

The answer is something more radical yet more safe longterm if it's true that CR movement won't happen again until the 2020s when contracts go a round again.

Cincy and UConn split from the AAC starting in 2016-17. UConn football needs Cincy football like Cincy bball needs UConn bball. They both understand that. The 2 of them have to get BYU and BSU on board otherwise the following doesn't happen.

The 4 of them agree on a 5th school. They have there pick, it will be a tough one. It's not about who won last year or who has the biggest stadium or what not. It's about the overall brand and everything that comes with that. It's all about the money. UConn and Cincy join the big east in all sports accept football. BSU and BYU join a conference out west the same way. The 5th school will have to figure out parking there other sports somewhere.

The 5 of them play each other home and home each year in football. That's 8 games. That's a very strict schedule and it will be heavily relying on those schools getting good OOC games. The rpi and strength of it must be so great that they are a threat to steal a bid to the playoff with a undefeated team and a shoe in for the G5 bid vs a undefeated team from a G5 conference even with a loss or 2 on the best eams resume. It's doable.

In basketball the 5 schedule each other round robin early in the season to help each other out and create a brand bond among them fanbase wise. They will also have to help each other play OOC games vs the big east and west coast conference(that BYU and BSU join). Basically if Gonzagas conference lets BSU and BYU in for other sports, they get a deal to play UConn and Cincy OOC 2 games a year. Some type of deal like that on both sides to make it worth while for parking other sports.

The 5 schools will sell the right to the name of the conference to the highest bidder. They then will sell tier 1 football game rights to the highest bidder. If that means fox so be it. If that means espn Friday night so be it. After that the schools are in charge of the rest of its home football games and bball games they play vs the other 4 in conference. BYU has a network, Cincy has outlets, UConn has SNY who will eat that up.

It's the only way to go if your Cincy or UConn at this point. These 2 programs can have up and down years on the field/court but no matter the results the brands and audience those 2 get trumps everyone else and so they are held back by current standards in the AAC.

You just can't have the bottom half of this conference in bball holding you back like this. Temple and other arguments not getting into the brackets this weekend cost the league $. While small, every dollar counts when your one of these schools who has a legit shot at becoming a p5 school down the line. Everyone needs that 100k after being split up from what 1.7mil? But those schools need it more based on where they aspire to be. In football Cincy has been solid and UConn is finishing up a down phase. The problem is half the league was bad recently like UConn so it hurts even more. If UConn was down like this and Cincy was solid in the big east years ago. No big deal as the teams visiting were good and the brands made them audience grabbers anyway. That's simply not the case anymore.

What happened this weekend will never give the AAC a shot to live as the best of the G5. I think the powers that be wanted it that way. They have left UConn and Cincy almost no choice. Staying in the AAC gets them nowhere and just gasping at air trying to survive long enough and hope to get a invite down the line. They need money and they need better brands selling tickets and grabbing a audience night in and out on TV.

YAWN, I'M SLEEPY, going to bed.

(03-16-2015 09:03 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  I've posted this elsewhere but I think that UConn, Cincy, BYU, and Boise St. do need to align and form the core of a new conference. That way they can start over with media rights and bowl contracts. I'd start with 8 members for now.

UConn
Cincy
BYU
Boise St.
Memphis
UCF
SMU
UNLV

Maybe add a 9th to make scheduling easier but I'm not sure who I'd want. That would be a balanced league in football and hoops. 5 of the 8 have been in BCS bowls, or the equivalent. 3 have won NCAA championships in hoops. There is a good amount of NCAA tourney history there. I don't know. I don't think the AAC is going to work though.

These "best of the rest" conference proposals keep surfacing on the board. They ignore the obstacles that exist to the creation of new FBS D-I conferences.

First and foremost, a new "best of the rest" conference wouldn't be a signatory to the CFP agreement. And there's no reason to think the FBS conferences who are currently splitting up the CFP money would welcome another mouth to feed. So the G-5 schools that left their current conference to join the new conference would be facing the loss of their CFP payouts, loss of eligibility for the Access Bowl, and potentially loss of eligibility for the championship playoff.

Then there's the basketball auto bid problem. Below are the rules from the 2014-15 NCAA handbook defining the minimum requirements to be considered a D-I conference. These rules are important because only conferences that meet these requirements are eligible for auto bids to the NCAA basketball tournament:

20.02.5 Multisport Conference. A Division I multisport conference shall satisfy the requirements of this
section. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
20.02.5.1 Minimum Number of Members. A multisport conference shall be composed of at least seven
active Division I members. The member conference shall include at least seven active Division I members that
sponsor both men’s and women’s basketball. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11) [Note: For FBS conferences this requirement goes up to eight members.]
20.02.5.2 Sports Sponsorship. A multisport conference shall satisfy the following requirements: (Adopted:
1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
(a) The conference shall sponsor a minimum of 12 Division I sports;
(b) The conference shall sponsor a minimum of six men’s sports, one of which shall be men’s basketball. In
addition to men’s basketball, the conference shall sponsor football or two other men’s team sports. A
minimum of seven members shall sponsor men’s basketball. A minimum of six members shall sponsor
five other sports, including football or two additional men’s team sports; and
© The conference shall sponsor a minimum of six women’s sports, one of which shall be women’s basketball.
In addition to women’s basketball, the conference shall sponsor two other women’s team sports. A
minimum of seven members shall sponsor women’s basketball. A minimum of six members shall sponsor
five other sports, including two additional women’s team sports (or a minimum of five members for an emerging sport for women).
20.02.5.3 Regular-Season Conference Competition. Multisport conference members shall participate in regular-season conference competition, subject to the following requirements: (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
(a) Basketball teams shall participate in a regular-season conference schedule of a double round robin, in-season competition, or a minimum of 14 regular-season conference contests;
(b) In football or in a minimum of two men’s team sports other than men’s basketball [as required in Bylaw 20.02.5.2-(b)], teams shall compete in a minimum regular-season conference schedule of five contests. A minimum of five regular-season conference contests must be hosted by one of the two competing teams at its home venue; and
© In a minimum of two women’s team sports other than women’s basketball (as required in Bylaw 20.02.5.2), teams shall compete in a minimum regular-season conference schedule of five contests. A minimum of five regular-season conference contests must be hosted by one of the two competing teams at its home venue.
20.02.5.4 Continuity. A multisport conference shall establish continuity. To establish continuity, a multisport conference must meet the requirements of Bylaw 20.02.5.1. In addition, the conference must meet the requirements of Bylaws 20.02.5.2 and 20.02.5.3 for a period of eight consecutive years. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

As stated in the bolded text in section 20.02.5.4, a new conference would have to sponsor the D-I minimum number of sports and the D-I minimum number of competitions for eight years before qualifying for an NCAA tournament auto-bid. For schools that have strong enough hoops programs to earn at-large invitations, the lack of an auto bid might not be a deterrent to forming a new conference. But it would be an issue for schools with weaker basketball programs whose best hope for getting into the Dance is to get hot during the conference tournament.

Next there's the geography problem. G-5 schools generally don't have the bucks to afford to fly their Olympic sports teams all over the country for conference games. Coaches don't like the long road trips, and players suffer academically from spending more time traveling at the expense of class time.

Finally there's the simple reality that no assemblage of current G-5 schools into a new conference is likely to be so attractive to the networks that they'll pay appreciably more for the conference's TV broadcast rights than the AAC and MWC already earn. That was proved when Boise State and San Diego State backed out from joining the AAC because the promised TV dollars didn't materialize.

So folks can keep on proposing these new conferences that they've custom-designed to free their favorite school from having to associate with perceived bottom-feeders, but the reality is that there are likely to be few if any changes to the current conference line-up. Memberships will continue to evolve, and conference mergers aren't out of the question, but no new FBS D-I conferences are likely to appear.

I still believe AAC should have Revived the "Metro Conference" name. It seems that the Sports writers and TV folks talk more about "AAC or American or whatever They call it" than They do about the quality of the Programs. I believe the Conference name hinders the Conference way more than anything else. On field or on court the conference itself is very competitive.

(03-17-2015 05:36 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  I still believe AAC should have Revived the "Metro Conference" name. It seems that the Sports writers and TV folks talk more about "AAC or American or whatever They call it" than They do about the quality of the Programs. I believe the Conference name hinders the Conference way more than anything else. On field or on court the conference itself is very competitive.

There's something to be said for that. I have long mainted the name really blew up any chance the original Conference USA had at being taken seriously.

Of course, the biggest problem the AAC faces is its paltry TV deal, crappy bowl tie-ins and the fact it is perceived as a "start up" conference.

(03-17-2015 05:36 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  I still believe AAC should have Revived the "Metro Conference" name. It seems that the Sports writers and TV folks talk more about "AAC or American or whatever They call it" than They do about the quality of the Programs. I believe the Conference name hinders the Conference way more than anything else. On field or on court the conference itself is very competitive.

If memory serves

Didn't Aresco mention the American12 too?!?

Not much difference but I would of taking the "American12" over the American instead.

I think the problems for Cincy, UConn, BYU, and Boise are clear.

To me the inevitable answer is forming a best of the rest conference that has been discussed before on this board.

East:

Cincy
UConn
UCF
USF
East Carolina
Memphis


West:

BYU
Boise
San Diego State
Colorado State
Houston
SMU

New conference problems be hanged......gotta think long term

(03-17-2015 10:22 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  I think the problems for Cincy, UConn, BYU, and Boise are clear.

To me the inevitable answer is forming a best of the rest conference that has been discussed before on this board.

East:

Cincy
UConn
UCF
USF
East Carolina
Memphis


West:

BYU
Boise
San Diego State
Colorado State
Houston
SMU

New conference problems be hanged......gotta think long term

If you're patient, you can get around most of the problems. If a new conference is formed using at least 6 teams that have played all-sports together for the previous 6 years (I think that's the correct number of years), then the conference can immediately qualify for an NCAA autobid. That's how the Big East was able to get an autobid in their first year of existence. However, that doesn't help you with the CFP G5 access slot.

(03-16-2015 05:26 PM)BE4neva Wrote:  Cincy and UConn are the 2 biggest brands in college sports in general besides BYU with BSU in that top 4 also among the non power 5 schools. What happened this weekend sealed the deal IMHO. It's not that UConn didn't get in or Cincys seed. It's the overall disrespect for the AAC that will ultimately cause those 2 to leave. Right now they are getting the buyout money so they are getting north of 6 mil a year which isn't great but it's better than just the simple AAC deal. That doesn't last much longer. The solution isn't dropping football or joining the Mac or any of those crazy answers. It's not going independent either. Those are not realistic for the 2 schools who are trying to get into the ACC/b1g.

The answer is something more radical yet more safe longterm if it's true that CR movement won't happen again until the 2020s when contracts go a round again.

Cincy and UConn split from the AAC starting in 2016-17. UConn football needs Cincy football like Cincy bball needs UConn bball. They both understand that. The 2 of them have to get BYU and BSU on board otherwise the following doesn't happen.

The 4 of them agree on a 5th school. They have there pick, it will be a tough one. It's not about who won last year or who has the biggest stadium or what not. It's about the overall brand and everything that comes with that. It's all about the money. UConn and Cincy join the big east in all sports accept football. BSU and BYU join a conference out west the same way. The 5th school will have to figure out parking there other sports somewhere.

The 5 of them play each other home and home each year in football. That's 8 games. That's a very strict schedule and it will be heavily relying on those schools getting good OOC games. The rpi and strength of it must be so great that they are a threat to steal a bid to the playoff with a undefeated team and a shoe in for the G5 bid vs a undefeated team from a G5 conference even with a loss or 2 on the best eams resume. It's doable.

In basketball the 5 schedule each other round robin early in the season to help each other out and create a brand bond among them fanbase wise. They will also have to help each other play OOC games vs the big east and west coast conference(that BYU and BSU join). Basically if Gonzagas conference lets BSU and BYU in for other sports, they get a deal to play UConn and Cincy OOC 2 games a year. Some type of deal like that on both sides to make it worth while for parking other sports.

The 5 schools will sell the right to the name of the conference to the highest bidder. They then will sell tier 1 football game rights to the highest bidder. If that means fox so be it. If that means espn Friday night so be it. After that the schools are in charge of the rest of its home football games and bball games they play vs the other 4 in conference. BYU has a network, Cincy has outlets, UConn has SNY who will eat that up.

It's the only way to go if your Cincy or UConn at this point. These 2 programs can have up and down years on the field/court but no matter the results the brands and audience those 2 get trumps everyone else and so they are held back by current standards in the AAC.

You just can't have the bottom half of this conference in bball holding you back like this. Temple and other arguments not getting into the brackets this weekend cost the league $. While small, every dollar counts when your one of these schools who has a legit shot at becoming a p5 school down the line. Everyone needs that 100k after being split up from what 1.7mil? But those schools need it more based on where they aspire to be. In football Cincy has been solid and UConn is finishing up a down phase. The problem is half the league was bad recently like UConn so it hurts even more. If UConn was down like this and Cincy was solid in the big east years ago. No big deal as the teams visiting were good and the brands made them audience grabbers anyway. That's simply not the case anymore.

What happened this weekend will never give the AAC a shot to live as the best of the G5. I think the powers that be wanted it that way. They have left UConn and Cincy almost no choice. Staying in the AAC gets them nowhere and just gasping at air trying to survive long enough and hope to get a invite down the line. They need money and they need better brands selling tickets and grabbing a audience night in and out on TV.

Yep Cincy and UConn to the Big Least...

(03-17-2015 12:57 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 09:03 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  I've posted this elsewhere but I think that UConn, Cincy, BYU, and Boise St. do need to align and form the core of a new conference. That way they can start over with media rights and bowl contracts. I'd start with 8 members for now.

UConn
Cincy
BYU
Boise St.
Memphis
UCF
SMU
UNLV

Maybe add a 9th to make scheduling easier but I'm not sure who I'd want. That would be a balanced league in football and hoops. 5 of the 8 have been in BCS bowls, or the equivalent. 3 have won NCAA championships in hoops. There is a good amount of NCAA tourney history there. I don't know. I don't think the AAC is going to work though.

These "best of the rest" conference proposals keep surfacing on the board. They ignore the obstacles that exist to the creation of new FBS D-I conferences.

First and foremost, a new "best of the rest" conference wouldn't be a signatory to the CFP agreement. And there's no reason to think the FBS conferences who are currently splitting up the CFP money would welcome another mouth to feed. So the G-5 schools that left their current conference to join the new conference would be facing the loss of their CFP payouts, loss of eligibility for the Access Bowl, and potentially loss of eligibility for the championship playoff.

Then there's the basketball auto bid problem. Below are the rules from the 2014-15 NCAA handbook defining the minimum requirements to be considered a D-I conference. These rules are important because only conferences that meet these requirements are eligible for auto bids to the NCAA basketball tournament:

20.02.5 Multisport Conference. A Division I multisport conference shall satisfy the requirements of this
section. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
20.02.5.1 Minimum Number of Members. A multisport conference shall be composed of at least seven
active Division I members. The member conference shall include at least seven active Division I members that
sponsor both men’s and women’s basketball. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11) [Note: For FBS conferences this requirement goes up to eight members.]
20.02.5.2 Sports Sponsorship. A multisport conference shall satisfy the following requirements: (Adopted:
1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
(a) The conference shall sponsor a minimum of 12 Division I sports;
(b) The conference shall sponsor a minimum of six men’s sports, one of which shall be men’s basketball. In
addition to men’s basketball, the conference shall sponsor football or two other men’s team sports. A
minimum of seven members shall sponsor men’s basketball. A minimum of six members shall sponsor
five other sports, including football or two additional men’s team sports; and
© The conference shall sponsor a minimum of six women’s sports, one of which shall be women’s basketball.
In addition to women’s basketball, the conference shall sponsor two other women’s team sports. A
minimum of seven members shall sponsor women’s basketball. A minimum of six members shall sponsor
five other sports, including two additional women’s team sports (or a minimum of five members for an emerging sport for women).
20.02.5.3 Regular-Season Conference Competition. Multisport conference members shall participate in regular-season conference competition, subject to the following requirements: (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
(a) Basketball teams shall participate in a regular-season conference schedule of a double round robin, in-season competition, or a minimum of 14 regular-season conference contests;
(b) In football or in a minimum of two men’s team sports other than men’s basketball [as required in Bylaw 20.02.5.2-(b)], teams shall compete in a minimum regular-season conference schedule of five contests. A minimum of five regular-season conference contests must be hosted by one of the two competing teams at its home venue; and
© In a minimum of two women’s team sports other than women’s basketball (as required in Bylaw 20.02.5.2), teams shall compete in a minimum regular-season conference schedule of five contests. A minimum of five regular-season conference contests must be hosted by one of the two competing teams at its home venue.
20.02.5.4 Continuity. A multisport conference shall establish continuity. To establish continuity, a multisport conference must meet the requirements of Bylaw 20.02.5.1. In addition, the conference must meet the requirements of Bylaws 20.02.5.2 and 20.02.5.3 for a period of eight consecutive years. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

As stated in the bolded text in section 20.02.5.4, a new conference would have to sponsor the D-I minimum number of sports and the D-I minimum number of competitions for eight years before qualifying for an NCAA tournament auto-bid. For schools that have strong enough hoops programs to earn at-large invitations, the lack of an auto bid might not be a deterrent to forming a new conference. But it would be an issue for schools with weaker basketball programs whose best hope for getting into the Dance is to get hot during the conference tournament.

Next there's the geography problem. G-5 schools generally don't have the bucks to afford to fly their Olympic sports teams all over the country for conference games. Coaches don't like the long road trips, and players suffer academically from spending more time traveling at the expense of class time.

Finally there's the simple reality that no assemblage of current G-5 schools into a new conference is likely to be so attractive to the networks that they'll pay appreciably more for the conference's TV broadcast rights than the AAC and MWC already earn. That was proved when Boise State and San Diego State backed out from joining the AAC because the promised TV dollars didn't materialize.

So folks can keep on proposing these new conferences that they've custom-designed to free their favorite school from having to associate with perceived bottom-feeders, but the reality is that there are likely to be few if any changes to the current conference line-up. Memberships will continue to evolve, and conference mergers aren't out of the question, but no new FBS D-I conferences are likely to appear.

The bylaw sections you cite refer to multisport conferences. I think what was proposed in the OP would have been to form a single sport conference for football only, and have the members of that conference find a home for all their other sports in another conference. I'm not sure if the possibility of a football only FBS conference has ever been addressed by the NCAA.

(03-17-2015 11:40 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 12:57 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 09:03 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  I've posted this elsewhere but I think that UConn, Cincy, BYU, and Boise St. do need to align and form the core of a new conference. That way they can start over with media rights and bowl contracts. I'd start with 8 members for now.

UConn
Cincy
BYU
Boise St.
Memphis
UCF
SMU
UNLV

Maybe add a 9th to make scheduling easier but I'm not sure who I'd want. That would be a balanced league in football and hoops. 5 of the 8 have been in BCS bowls, or the equivalent. 3 have won NCAA championships in hoops. There is a good amount of NCAA tourney history there. I don't know. I don't think the AAC is going to work though.

These "best of the rest" conference proposals keep surfacing on the board. They ignore the obstacles that exist to the creation of new FBS D-I conferences.

First and foremost, a new "best of the rest" conference wouldn't be a signatory to the CFP agreement. And there's no reason to think the FBS conferences who are currently splitting up the CFP money would welcome another mouth to feed. So the G-5 schools that left their current conference to join the new conference would be facing the loss of their CFP payouts, loss of eligibility for the Access Bowl, and potentially loss of eligibility for the championship playoff.

Then there's the basketball auto bid problem. Below are the rules from the 2014-15 NCAA handbook defining the minimum requirements to be considered a D-I conference. These rules are important because only conferences that meet these requirements are eligible for auto bids to the NCAA basketball tournament:

20.02.5 Multisport Conference. A Division I multisport conference shall satisfy the requirements of this
section. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
20.02.5.1 Minimum Number of Members. A multisport conference shall be composed of at least seven
active Division I members. The member conference shall include at least seven active Division I members that
sponsor both men’s and women’s basketball. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11) [Note: For FBS conferences this requirement goes up to eight members.]
20.02.5.2 Sports Sponsorship. A multisport conference shall satisfy the following requirements: (Adopted:
1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
(a) The conference shall sponsor a minimum of 12 Division I sports;
(b) The conference shall sponsor a minimum of six men’s sports, one of which shall be men’s basketball. In
addition to men’s basketball, the conference shall sponsor football or two other men’s team sports. A
minimum of seven members shall sponsor men’s basketball. A minimum of six members shall sponsor
five other sports, including football or two additional men’s team sports; and
© The conference shall sponsor a minimum of six women’s sports, one of which shall be women’s basketball.
In addition to women’s basketball, the conference shall sponsor two other women’s team sports. A
minimum of seven members shall sponsor women’s basketball. A minimum of six members shall sponsor
five other sports, including two additional women’s team sports (or a minimum of five members for an emerging sport for women).
20.02.5.3 Regular-Season Conference Competition. Multisport conference members shall participate in regular-season conference competition, subject to the following requirements: (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
(a) Basketball teams shall participate in a regular-season conference schedule of a double round robin, in-season competition, or a minimum of 14 regular-season conference contests;
(b) In football or in a minimum of two men’s team sports other than men’s basketball [as required in Bylaw 20.02.5.2-(b)], teams shall compete in a minimum regular-season conference schedule of five contests. A minimum of five regular-season conference contests must be hosted by one of the two competing teams at its home venue; and
© In a minimum of two women’s team sports other than women’s basketball (as required in Bylaw 20.02.5.2), teams shall compete in a minimum regular-season conference schedule of five contests. A minimum of five regular-season conference contests must be hosted by one of the two competing teams at its home venue.
20.02.5.4 Continuity. A multisport conference shall establish continuity. To establish continuity, a multisport conference must meet the requirements of Bylaw 20.02.5.1. In addition, the conference must meet the requirements of Bylaws 20.02.5.2 and 20.02.5.3 for a period of eight consecutive years. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

As stated in the bolded text in section 20.02.5.4, a new conference would have to sponsor the D-I minimum number of sports and the D-I minimum number of competitions for eight years before qualifying for an NCAA tournament auto-bid. For schools that have strong enough hoops programs to earn at-large invitations, the lack of an auto bid might not be a deterrent to forming a new conference. But it would be an issue for schools with weaker basketball programs whose best hope for getting into the Dance is to get hot during the conference tournament.

Next there's the geography problem. G-5 schools generally don't have the bucks to afford to fly their Olympic sports teams all over the country for conference games. Coaches don't like the long road trips, and players suffer academically from spending more time traveling at the expense of class time.

Finally there's the simple reality that no assemblage of current G-5 schools into a new conference is likely to be so attractive to the networks that they'll pay appreciably more for the conference's TV broadcast rights than the AAC and MWC already earn. That was proved when Boise State and San Diego State backed out from joining the AAC because the promised TV dollars didn't materialize.

So folks can keep on proposing these new conferences that they've custom-designed to free their favorite school from having to associate with perceived bottom-feeders, but the reality is that there are likely to be few if any changes to the current conference line-up. Memberships will continue to evolve, and conference mergers aren't out of the question, but no new FBS D-I conferences are likely to appear.

The bylaw sections you cite refer to multisport conferences. I think what was proposed in the OP would have been to form a single sport conference for football only, and have the members of that conference find a home for all their other sports in another conference. I'm not sure if the possibility of a football only FBS conference has ever been addressed by the NCAA.

FBS Conferences have to be all sports. Now it all the above schools want to move the football teams down to FCS they could have there football only conference.

(03-17-2015 11:40 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 12:57 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 09:03 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  I've posted this elsewhere but I think that UConn, Cincy, BYU, and Boise St. do need to align and form the core of a new conference. That way they can start over with media rights and bowl contracts. I'd start with 8 members for now.

UConn
Cincy
BYU
Boise St.
Memphis
UCF
SMU
UNLV

Maybe add a 9th to make scheduling easier but I'm not sure who I'd want. That would be a balanced league in football and hoops. 5 of the 8 have been in BCS bowls, or the equivalent. 3 have won NCAA championships in hoops. There is a good amount of NCAA tourney history there. I don't know. I don't think the AAC is going to work though.

These "best of the rest" conference proposals keep surfacing on the board. They ignore the obstacles that exist to the creation of new FBS D-I conferences.

First and foremost, a new "best of the rest" conference wouldn't be a signatory to the CFP agreement. And there's no reason to think the FBS conferences who are currently splitting up the CFP money would welcome another mouth to feed. So the G-5 schools that left their current conference to join the new conference would be facing the loss of their CFP payouts, loss of eligibility for the Access Bowl, and potentially loss of eligibility for the championship playoff.

Then there's the basketball auto bid problem. Below are the rules from the 2014-15 NCAA handbook defining the minimum requirements to be considered a D-I conference. These rules are important because only conferences that meet these requirements are eligible for auto bids to the NCAA basketball tournament:

20.02.5 Multisport Conference. A Division I multisport conference shall satisfy the requirements of this
section. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
20.02.5.1 Minimum Number of Members. A multisport conference shall be composed of at least seven
active Division I members. The member conference shall include at least seven active Division I members that
sponsor both men’s and women’s basketball. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11) [Note: For FBS conferences this requirement goes up to eight members.]
20.02.5.2 Sports Sponsorship. A multisport conference shall satisfy the following requirements: (Adopted:
1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
(a) The conference shall sponsor a minimum of 12 Division I sports;
(b) The conference shall sponsor a minimum of six men’s sports, one of which shall be men’s basketball. In
addition to men’s basketball, the conference shall sponsor football or two other men’s team sports. A
minimum of seven members shall sponsor men’s basketball. A minimum of six members shall sponsor
five other sports, including football or two additional men’s team sports; and
© The conference shall sponsor a minimum of six women’s sports, one of which shall be women’s basketball.
In addition to women’s basketball, the conference shall sponsor two other women’s team sports. A
minimum of seven members shall sponsor women’s basketball. A minimum of six members shall sponsor
five other sports, including two additional women’s team sports (or a minimum of five members for an emerging sport for women).
20.02.5.3 Regular-Season Conference Competition. Multisport conference members shall participate in regular-season conference competition, subject to the following requirements: (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
(a) Basketball teams shall participate in a regular-season conference schedule of a double round robin, in-season competition, or a minimum of 14 regular-season conference contests;
(b) In football or in a minimum of two men’s team sports other than men’s basketball [as required in Bylaw 20.02.5.2-(b)], teams shall compete in a minimum regular-season conference schedule of five contests. A minimum of five regular-season conference contests must be hosted by one of the two competing teams at its home venue; and
© In a minimum of two women’s team sports other than women’s basketball (as required in Bylaw 20.02.5.2), teams shall compete in a minimum regular-season conference schedule of five contests. A minimum of five regular-season conference contests must be hosted by one of the two competing teams at its home venue.
20.02.5.4 Continuity. A multisport conference shall establish continuity. To establish continuity, a multisport conference must meet the requirements of Bylaw 20.02.5.1. In addition, the conference must meet the requirements of Bylaws 20.02.5.2 and 20.02.5.3 for a period of eight consecutive years. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

As stated in the bolded text in section 20.02.5.4, a new conference would have to sponsor the D-I minimum number of sports and the D-I minimum number of competitions for eight years before qualifying for an NCAA tournament auto-bid. For schools that have strong enough hoops programs to earn at-large invitations, the lack of an auto bid might not be a deterrent to forming a new conference. But it would be an issue for schools with weaker basketball programs whose best hope for getting into the Dance is to get hot during the conference tournament.

Next there's the geography problem. G-5 schools generally don't have the bucks to afford to fly their Olympic sports teams all over the country for conference games. Coaches don't like the long road trips, and players suffer academically from spending more time traveling at the expense of class time.

Finally there's the simple reality that no assemblage of current G-5 schools into a new conference is likely to be so attractive to the networks that they'll pay appreciably more for the conference's TV broadcast rights than the AAC and MWC already earn. That was proved when Boise State and San Diego State backed out from joining the AAC because the promised TV dollars didn't materialize.

So folks can keep on proposing these new conferences that they've custom-designed to free their favorite school from having to associate with perceived bottom-feeders, but the reality is that there are likely to be few if any changes to the current conference line-up. Memberships will continue to evolve, and conference mergers aren't out of the question, but no new FBS D-I conferences are likely to appear.

The bylaw sections you cite refer to multisport conferences. I think what was proposed in the OP would have been to form a single sport conference for football only, and have the members of that conference find a home for all their other sports in another conference. I'm not sure if the possibility of a football only FBS conference has ever been addressed by the NCAA.

It has. FBS football can only be sponsored by conferences meeting clearly defined parameters. They must have a certain number of schools playing together and the group must sponsor a bevy of other sports before they are allowed to sponsor FBS football. A FBS "football only" conference is not allowed---which I pointed out in the second post of this now lengthy thread.

(03-17-2015 11:43 AM)ValleyBoy Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 11:40 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 12:57 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 09:03 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  I've posted this elsewhere but I think that UConn, Cincy, BYU, and Boise St. do need to align and form the core of a new conference. That way they can start over with media rights and bowl contracts. I'd start with 8 members for now.

UConn
Cincy
BYU
Boise St.
Memphis
UCF
SMU
UNLV

Maybe add a 9th to make scheduling easier but I'm not sure who I'd want. That would be a balanced league in football and hoops. 5 of the 8 have been in BCS bowls, or the equivalent. 3 have won NCAA championships in hoops. There is a good amount of NCAA tourney history there. I don't know. I don't think the AAC is going to work though.

These "best of the rest" conference proposals keep surfacing on the board. They ignore the obstacles that exist to the creation of new FBS D-I conferences.

First and foremost, a new "best of the rest" conference wouldn't be a signatory to the CFP agreement. And there's no reason to think the FBS conferences who are currently splitting up the CFP money would welcome another mouth to feed. So the G-5 schools that left their current conference to join the new conference would be facing the loss of their CFP payouts, loss of eligibility for the Access Bowl, and potentially loss of eligibility for the championship playoff.

Then there's the basketball auto bid problem. Below are the rules from the 2014-15 NCAA handbook defining the minimum requirements to be considered a D-I conference. These rules are important because only conferences that meet these requirements are eligible for auto bids to the NCAA basketball tournament:

20.02.5 Multisport Conference. A Division I multisport conference shall satisfy the requirements of this
section. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
20.02.5.1 Minimum Number of Members. A multisport conference shall be composed of at least seven
active Division I members. The member conference shall include at least seven active Division I members that
sponsor both men’s and women’s basketball. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11) [Note: For FBS conferences this requirement goes up to eight members.]
20.02.5.2 Sports Sponsorship. A multisport conference shall satisfy the following requirements: (Adopted:
1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
(a) The conference shall sponsor a minimum of 12 Division I sports;
(b) The conference shall sponsor a minimum of six men’s sports, one of which shall be men’s basketball. In
addition to men’s basketball, the conference shall sponsor football or two other men’s team sports. A
minimum of seven members shall sponsor men’s basketball. A minimum of six members shall sponsor
five other sports, including football or two additional men’s team sports; and
© The conference shall sponsor a minimum of six women’s sports, one of which shall be women’s basketball.
In addition to women’s basketball, the conference shall sponsor two other women’s team sports. A
minimum of seven members shall sponsor women’s basketball. A minimum of six members shall sponsor
five other sports, including two additional women’s team sports (or a minimum of five members for an emerging sport for women).
20.02.5.3 Regular-Season Conference Competition. Multisport conference members shall participate in regular-season conference competition, subject to the following requirements: (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)
(a) Basketball teams shall participate in a regular-season conference schedule of a double round robin, in-season competition, or a minimum of 14 regular-season conference contests;
(b) In football or in a minimum of two men’s team sports other than men’s basketball [as required in Bylaw 20.02.5.2-(b)], teams shall compete in a minimum regular-season conference schedule of five contests. A minimum of five regular-season conference contests must be hosted by one of the two competing teams at its home venue; and
© In a minimum of two women’s team sports other than women’s basketball (as required in Bylaw 20.02.5.2), teams shall compete in a minimum regular-season conference schedule of five contests. A minimum of five regular-season conference contests must be hosted by one of the two competing teams at its home venue.
20.02.5.4 Continuity. A multisport conference shall establish continuity. To establish continuity, a multisport conference must meet the requirements of Bylaw 20.02.5.1. In addition, the conference must meet the requirements of Bylaws 20.02.5.2 and 20.02.5.3 for a period of eight consecutive years. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

As stated in the bolded text in section 20.02.5.4, a new conference would have to sponsor the D-I minimum number of sports and the D-I minimum number of competitions for eight years before qualifying for an NCAA tournament auto-bid. For schools that have strong enough hoops programs to earn at-large invitations, the lack of an auto bid might not be a deterrent to forming a new conference. But it would be an issue for schools with weaker basketball programs whose best hope for getting into the Dance is to get hot during the conference tournament.

Next there's the geography problem. G-5 schools generally don't have the bucks to afford to fly their Olympic sports teams all over the country for conference games. Coaches don't like the long road trips, and players suffer academically from spending more time traveling at the expense of class time.

Finally there's the simple reality that no assemblage of current G-5 schools into a new conference is likely to be so attractive to the networks that they'll pay appreciably more for the conference's TV broadcast rights than the AAC and MWC already earn. That was proved when Boise State and San Diego State backed out from joining the AAC because the promised TV dollars didn't materialize.

So folks can keep on proposing these new conferences that they've custom-designed to free their favorite school from having to associate with perceived bottom-feeders, but the reality is that there are likely to be few if any changes to the current conference line-up. Memberships will continue to evolve, and conference mergers aren't out of the question, but no new FBS D-I conferences are likely to appear.

The bylaw sections you cite refer to multisport conferences. I think what was proposed in the OP would have been to form a single sport conference for football only, and have the members of that conference find a home for all their other sports in another conference. I'm not sure if the possibility of a football only FBS conference has ever been addressed by the NCAA.

FBS Conferences have to be all sports. Now it all the above schools want to move the football teams down to FCS they could have there football only conference.

Correct for FCS. But as you pointed out, that's not the case for FBS.

The important point here is that even if the bylaws were tweaked to allow single-sport football conferences in FBS -- or perhaps say the wholesale move-up of an FCS conference via tethering to an FBS independent (Big Sky with Idaho and/or New Mexico St, CAA with UMass, etc.) -- the new conference would be completely external to the CFP and would have zero bowl tie-ins.

Maybe its champion would be invited to a G5 bowl, but most of those seem to have both slots contracted. That seems to be most bowls, actually.


That's tough sledding. But perhaps something to think about closer to the end of the current CFP.

On the other hand, maybe the new conference would want to establish itself and its brand for a few years before the next CFP is negotiated, to make sure they can have a seat at the table with the other G5 conferences. But like I said, tough sledding.

an alternative proposal: how about memphis and cinci just apply to join the mwc?

it obviously benefits the mwc to have 2 traditional/national basketball programs added - both with good sized football stadiums (and one bowl game host) and both coming in with recent football success. it benefits cinci and memphis in football to play boise state, sdsu, nevada, utah state, colorado state and air force - and makes the mwc a perrenial 3-4 ncaa bid bb conference (they got 3 this year - and deserved 4).

basketball would have: memphis, cinci, unlv, utah state, new mexico, boise state, etc
football would have: boise state, cinci, nevada, utah state, fresno state, memphis, etc

a bolstered mwc-14 would be well ahead of the rest of the g5 in football (partly from improving the mwc and partly from depleting the aac) and would be competitive with the a-10 in basketball.

(03-18-2015 12:00 PM)e-bethMSU Wrote:  an alternative proposal: how about memphis and cinci just apply to join the mwc?

it obviously benefits the mwc to have 2 traditional/national basketball programs added - both with good sized football stadiums (and one bowl game host) and both coming in with recent football success. it benefits cinci and memphis in football to play boise state, sdsu, nevada, utah state, colorado state and air force - and makes the mwc a perrenial 3-4 ncaa bid bb conference (they got 3 this year - and deserved 4).

basketball would have: memphis, cinci, unlv, utah state, new mexico, boise state, etc
football would have: boise state, cinci, nevada, utah state, fresno state, memphis, etc

a bolstered mwc-14 would be well ahead of the rest of the g5 in football (partly from improving the mwc and partly from depleting the aac) and would be competitive with the a-10 in basketball.

That's putting the Memphis and Cinci basketball teams at a big disadvantage when it comes to travel. Maybe if the MW invited a group of 4-6 AAC teams, you might be able to sell it. Something like Houston, SMU, Tulsa, Cinci, Tulane, and Memphis might work. The travel wouldn't be quite so bad for the new additions and would be more of a shared burden for the existing MW teams. Gets the MW into Texas, Louisiana, Tenn, Ohio, and Oklahoma. That's 53 million people----probably comes close to doubling the population in the MW footprint. Go to 3 6-team pods (you would need for FBS divisional play rules to be reformed first).

(03-17-2015 09:09 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 05:36 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  I still believe AAC should have Revived the "Metro Conference" name. It seems that the Sports writers and TV folks talk more about "AAC or American or whatever They call it" than They do about the quality of the Programs. I believe the Conference name hinders the Conference way more than anything else. On field or on court the conference itself is very competitive.

There's something to be said for that. I have long mainted the name really blew up any chance the original Conference USA had at being taken seriously.

Of course, the biggest problem the AAC faces is its paltry TV deal, crappy bowl tie-ins and the fact it is perceived as a "start up" conference.

The name 'American Athletic Conference' isn't too bad, and the logo is cool... where they jumped the Shark is with the official request to be referred to as 'The American'. That was ridiculous, and a very bad Clooney movie, IIRC.

I'd agree with Metro, some of our schools were in the Metro, and it links to a bit of history and legitimacy. Too bad that we'll never know how it would have fared as our new name...

(03-18-2015 01:13 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 09:09 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 05:36 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  I still believe AAC should have Revived the "Metro Conference" name. It seems that the Sports writers and TV folks talk more about "AAC or American or whatever They call it" than They do about the quality of the Programs. I believe the Conference name hinders the Conference way more than anything else. On field or on court the conference itself is very competitive.

There's something to be said for that. I have long mainted the name really blew up any chance the original Conference USA had at being taken seriously.

Of course, the biggest problem the AAC faces is its paltry TV deal, crappy bowl tie-ins and the fact it is perceived as a "start up" conference.

The name 'American Athletic Conference' isn't too bad, and the logo is cool... where they jumped the Shark is with the official request to be referred to as 'The American'. That was ridiculous, and a very bad Clooney movie, IIRC.

I'd agree with Metro, some of our schools were in the Metro, and it links to a bit of history and legitimacy. Too bad that we'll never know how it would have fared as our new name...

They wanted "America" in the name because it tested well. Probably should have been Metro America Conference or American Metro Conference. Get the "America" in there with a nod to the past.

(03-18-2015 02:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 01:13 PM)Bull Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 09:09 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(03-17-2015 05:36 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  I still believe AAC should have Revived the "Metro Conference" name. It seems that the Sports writers and TV folks talk more about "AAC or American or whatever They call it" than They do about the quality of the Programs. I believe the Conference name hinders the Conference way more than anything else. On field or on court the conference itself is very competitive.

There's something to be said for that. I have long mainted the name really blew up any chance the original Conference USA had at being taken seriously.

Of course, the biggest problem the AAC faces is its paltry TV deal, crappy bowl tie-ins and the fact it is perceived as a "start up" conference.

The name 'American Athletic Conference' isn't too bad, and the logo is cool... where they jumped the Shark is with the official request to be referred to as 'The American'. That was ridiculous, and a very bad Clooney movie, IIRC.

I'd agree with Metro, some of our schools were in the Metro, and it links to a bit of history and legitimacy. Too bad that we'll never know how it would have fared as our new name...

They wanted "America" in the name because it tested well. Probably should have been Metro America Conference or American Metro Conference. Get the "America" in there with a nod to the past.

Never could have been the Metro America Conference because that would be too close to either the MAC or the MAAC.