(03-19-2015 02:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Doesn't matter. If you count out of state teams recruiting in Texas, then you have to count out-of-state recruits coming to Texas. There are a finite number of recruits. Your whole theory is based on recruiting. You say Baylor is up because Texas is down, but Texas has had higher rated recruiting classes than Baylor every year. Texas got who they wanted....they just wanted the wrong guys.

The reality is that all 12 programs in Texas wont be the best at the same time. They cant be. Its impossible standard. It doesn't matter if they are in the same conference or different conferneces. You will always be able to rank them top to bottom and somebody will be on the top and somebody will be at the bottom. Your selling snake oil---some magic elixir that can make every team #1 at the same time.

it is OK to admit that you are simply wrong......you do not need to start tossing out strawmen like "every team number 1 at the same time"

again being "good" does not mean only being #1 being good and having sustained success means being in the top 25 many times over a long period of time

and again we are not talking about 12 teams in Texas or the number of D1-A teams in a state the discussion is about TEAMS IN THE SAME CONFERENCE IN THE SAME STATE and how too many teams IN THE SAME CONFERENCE IN THE SAME STATE dilutes that conference and their ability to have those teams in the same state all (or more than a couple at a time) sustain success for long periods of time

and you mention Texas and Baylor and recruiting....and then you make the asinine claim that it does not matter if they are in the same conference or not

again this is simply the part that you cannot wrap your head around......when 4 teams are in the same conference in the same state the best you could have for those 4 teams is

4-0
3-1
2-2
1-3

if it gets past that you start getting 3-1, 2-2, 2-2 and the like and again teams IN THE SAME STATE IN THE SAME CONFERENCE are feeding on each other

you are stuck on this silly idea that Texas teams cannot recruit from out of state.....you are stuck on the idea that 12 teams in Texas could not all recruit as well as 12 top teams across the country

but again what you can't seem to grasp is that even if 12 teams in Texas all recruited a top 12 recruiting class every year....IF THEY ARE IN THE SAME CONFERENCE THERE WILL BE GOOD AND BAD TEAMS BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE MATH SAYS

but the part you simply can't seem to grasp a hold of is that if you spread those 12 teams in Texas into 5 or 6 conferences and they all recruit top 12 recruiting classes every year they it would be very possible for those 12 teams in Texas to all have sustained success at the same time

because those 12 teams at most would HAVE TO play one or two other teams in Texas that are in the same conference.....and further if you had the Texas teams in different divisions and they did not play every year then both of them could go undefeated many years and meet in the CCG many years

you have the small time mid-major disease which is the disease that makes you believe that a conference is responsible for the success of an individual team instead of individual teams being responsible for their own success

look at a different way

if you have Alabama, OU, Texas, tOSU, Oregon, USC, LSU, Florida, FSU and Michigan all in the same conference and they play 9 conference games and they have only 3 OOC games.....again every single year some of those teams will simply have to suck......or even worse you could have a conference where every team at best wins their 3 OOC games and then they go .500 in conference (not actually possible with 9 conference games) and you end up with teams that are all 7.5-4.5......but since you can't have a half of a game you end up with teams that are 8-4 and teams that 7-5......and that conference pretty much sucks

but of course that is not what will happen it will sift over time and some teams will drop down and it will be hard for them to recover

then teams like Michigan State, Texas Tech, TCU, Auburn, OkState, Arkansas, UCLA, Miami and the like that play in other conferences will start getting recruits that do not want to go to programs that suck year after year.....the goal is to have good seasons and more wins and losses each season for the long term....the goal is not to have a bunch of seasons with losses to teams that are good and you can do like aggie and cheer about 4th or 5th place in your division IN THE SEC SEC SEC......SEC SEC SEC!!!

again what you can't seem to grasp is that all conferences will have good and bad teams every year.....BUT when a conference has a disproportionate number of teams in the same state going after a large number of the same recruits and when those teams HAVE TO PLAY EACH OTHER there will come a time that it will be difficult for the teams all in the same state in that same conference to pull out of their tail spin because they will be the team or teams in their state in that conference that go 2-2 or 1-3 against the other in state teams in that conference before they go lose to other conference teams

again it two Texas teams were in the ACC in different divisions.....two Texas teams were in the SEC in different divisions.....two Texas teams were in the Big 10 in different divisions.....two Texas teams were in the big 12 in different divisions and two Texas teams were in the PAC 12 in different divisions there would be a time when all 10 of those teams could go 12-0 if they did not play each other that time infra-divisional

and if all those teams were going 12-0 or 11-1 (when they play infra-divisional) then those teams would all be great teams and they would recruit nationally and be ranked in the top 25 often and in the top 10 often

but the part that you simply can't seem to grasp is that when you start removing those teams from DIFFERENT CONFERENCES and you start grouping them into the same conference and into the same division then it becomes IMPOSSIBLE for all of them to be good at the same time and the more teams you place in the same conference and division from the same state the more likely it is that more of those teams will fall off the map nationally and then they will fall off the map regionally ad then they will fall off the map in the state.....and then recruits will not only not go to those schools they will leave the state and possibly even the conference

and again what you can't grasp is that the fewer teams are in the same conference and the same division from the same state the more they have a chance to shine on their own and recruit state wide, regionally and nationally

there is nothing that says teams from the same state cannot all have top recruiting classes especially if they recruit nationally......but there is everything that says the more often they play each other especially in conference the more they will feed on each other and a sifting will happen to where some of those teams can't climb out of it especially in anything more than a few spurts before they drop back down

you simply can't grasp that because you have mid-majors disease and you think a conference makes a team instead of teams making a conference and you can't see the difference between recruiting and winning or that no matter how well you recruit you have to win an most importantly if you are playing a ton of teams that offer much of the same things that you offer and you lose to them often recruits will not come to you.....and if you differentiate yourself and start to play teams that are not like you and not from your area you have a much better chance to climb out from that losing.....like TCU dd

You type to much.

(03-19-2015 01:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 12:00 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 11:20 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 10:31 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 09:23 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  It's not that simple. If all CUSA members were in the same region, your argument would be valid. Crossover games increase travel costs and kills fan interest. No one in Houston cares to see Charlotte come to town, but they would be more likely to watch Texas State.

If you're adding Texas State so Charlotte doesn't have to travel to Houston, and presumably adding someone else in the East so Charlotte can visit them instead, then what on earth is the point of having Charlotte and the school in Houston in the same conference anymore?

Revenue? Only if you're saving enough on travel to pay out 2 additional full shares to 2 more schools.

Competitive profile? Well, now you've got 2 more schools to get past in order to win a championship, get an automatic post-season bid, earn a bowl, etc. so good luck with that.

Exposure? Please. The whole point of this endeavor was to regionalize everything more. Now the people in Houston REALLY don't give a crap about Charlotte because they never even see them.

Getting bigger so things can operate on a smaller scale is counterproductive and just adds an unnecessary step. If what you're after are distinct 8-school groups who don't interact with one another, splitting the conference would be a lot more efficient than expanding it.

You finally get it, two separate divions who's champions only meet in a championship game for football, and who's basketball divisions have scheduling agreements, but separate tournaments. All oylmpic sports stay separate. And I only used Charlotte as an example. I could have inserted any East school in their place. Wouldn't USM fans rather play ULL over FIU?

I totally get it. What you're advocating, though, is not an expanded conference of 16 members, it's 2 conferences of 8 members each connected in name only for one sport. Such a set-up would never work. It's just not feasible for two "divisions" to have that much autonomy and still operate under the same umbrella for any length of time. The minute the TV networks or the performance-based finances from the NCAA favor one side or the other, that side will drop the other side like a bad habit. Scheduling-wise, there's no point in keeping the 2 halves married. If the whole idea is to limit the long trips to once every 8 years or whatever, why even bother committing to an agreement for a game so rare? Using your own example, why should USM lock itself into going to UTEP in 8 years instead of just keeping that date open to go play East Carolina or Georgia Southern instead? If USM wanted to play ULL every year and Rice only twice a decade, we could just join the Sun Belt. Who knows? Maybe that'll be the way to go when it's all said & done.

The problem with these hypothetical realignments is everyone wants to create a new conference that's more convenient for their particular school, but they also want to stop short of leaving to start one. In every one of these fantasy scenarios, CUSA somehow stays intact, but has no reason to exist as an entity other than conveniently handing down its automatic bids, TV contracts, and bowl tie-ins.

Security. A 16 team conference is stronger and more stable than an 8 team conference. No real concerns about a raid ending the conference.

Having 16 total schools and scheduling agreements in basketball would only give networks more content from which to pull. We could find a way to schedule our best b-ball programs against one another. All the while, fans can conveniently travel to road games in their cars and increase gameday revenue for each school.

(03-19-2015 02:54 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 02:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Doesn't matter. If you count out of state teams recruiting in Texas, then you have to count out-of-state recruits coming to Texas. There are a finite number of recruits. Your whole theory is based on recruiting. You say Baylor is up because Texas is down, but Texas has had higher rated recruiting classes than Baylor every year. Texas got who they wanted....they just wanted the wrong guys.

The reality is that all 12 programs in Texas wont be the best at the same time. They cant be. Its impossible standard. It doesn't matter if they are in the same conference or different conferneces. You will always be able to rank them top to bottom and somebody will be on the top and somebody will be at the bottom. Your selling snake oil---some magic elixir that can make every team #1 at the same time.

it is OK to admit that you are simply wrong......you do not need to start tossing out strawmen like "every team number 1 at the same time"

again being "good" does not mean only being #1 being good and having sustained success means being in the top 25 many times over a long period of time

and again we are not talking about 12 teams in Texas or the number of D1-A teams in a state the discussion is about TEAMS IN THE SAME CONFERENCE IN THE SAME STATE and how too many teams IN THE SAME CONFERENCE IN THE SAME STATE dilutes that conference and their ability to have those teams in the same state all (or more than a couple at a time) sustain success for long periods of time

and you mention Texas and Baylor and recruiting....and then you make the asinine claim that it does not matter if they are in the same conference or not

again this is simply the part that you cannot wrap your head around......when 4 teams are in the same conference in the same state the best you could have for those 4 teams is

4-0
3-1
2-2
1-3

if it gets past that you start getting 3-1, 2-2, 2-2 and the like and again teams IN THE SAME STATE IN THE SAME CONFERENCE are feeding on each other

you are stuck on this silly idea that Texas teams cannot recruit from out of state.....you are stuck on the idea that 12 teams in Texas could not all recruit as well as 12 top teams across the country

but again what you can't seem to grasp is that even if 12 teams in Texas all recruited a top 12 recruiting class every year....IF THEY ARE IN THE SAME CONFERENCE THERE WILL BE GOOD AND BAD TEAMS BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE MATH SAYS

but the part you simply can't seem to grasp a hold of is that if you spread those 12 teams in Texas into 5 or 6 conferences and they all recruit top 12 recruiting classes every year they it would be very possible for those 12 teams in Texas to all have sustained success at the same time

because those 12 teams at most would HAVE TO play one or two other teams in Texas that are in the same conference.....and further if you had the Texas teams in different divisions and they did not play every year then both of them could go undefeated many years and meet in the CCG many years

you have the small time mid-major disease which is the disease that makes you believe that a conference is responsible for the success of an individual team instead of individual teams being responsible for their own success

look at a different way

if you have Alabama, OU, Texas, tOSU, Oregon, USC, LSU, Florida, FSU and Michigan all in the same conference and they play 9 conference games and they have only 3 OOC games.....again every single year some of those teams will simply have to suck......or even worse you could have a conference where every team at best wins their 3 OOC games and then they go .500 in conference (not actually possible with 9 conference games) and you end up with teams that are all 7.5-4.5......but since you can't have a half of a game you end up with teams that are 8-4 and teams that 7-5......and that conference pretty much sucks

but of course that is not what will happen it will sift over time and some teams will drop down and it will be hard for them to recover

then teams like Michigan State, Texas Tech, TCU, Auburn, OkState, Arkansas, UCLA, Miami and the like that play in other conferences will start getting recruits that do not want to go to programs that suck year after year.....the goal is to have good seasons and more wins and losses each season for the long term....the goal is not to have a bunch of seasons with losses to teams that are good and you can do like aggie and cheer about 4th or 5th place in your division IN THE SEC SEC SEC......SEC SEC SEC!!!

again what you can't seem to grasp is that all conferences will have good and bad teams every year.....BUT when a conference has a disproportionate number of teams in the same state going after a large number of the same recruits and when those teams HAVE TO PLAY EACH OTHER there will come a time that it will be difficult for the teams all in the same state in that same conference to pull out of their tail spin because they will be the team or teams in their state in that conference that go 2-2 or 1-3 against the other in state teams in that conference before they go lose to other conference teams

again it two Texas teams were in the ACC in different divisions.....two Texas teams were in the SEC in different divisions.....two Texas teams were in the Big 10 in different divisions.....two Texas teams were in the big 12 in different divisions and two Texas teams were in the PAC 12 in different divisions there would be a time when all 10 of those teams could go 12-0 if they did not play each other that time infra-divisional

and if all those teams were going 12-0 or 11-1 (when they play infra-divisional) then those teams would all be great teams and they would recruit nationally and be ranked in the top 25 often and in the top 10 often

but the part that you simply can't seem to grasp is that when you start removing those teams from DIFFERENT CONFERENCES and you start grouping them into the same conference and into the same division then it becomes IMPOSSIBLE for all of them to be good at the same time and the more teams you place in the same conference and division from the same state the more likely it is that more of those teams will fall off the map nationally and then they will fall off the map regionally ad then they will fall off the map in the state.....and then recruits will not only not go to those schools they will leave the state and possibly even the conference

and again what you can't grasp is that the fewer teams are in the same conference and the same division from the same state the more they have a chance to shine on their own and recruit state wide, regionally and nationally

there is nothing that says teams from the same state cannot all have top recruiting classes especially if they recruit nationally......but there is everything that says the more often they play each other especially in conference the more they will feed on each other and a sifting will happen to where some of those teams can't climb out of it especially in anything more than a few spurts before they drop back down

you simply can't grasp that because you have mid-majors disease and you think a conference makes a team instead of teams making a conference and you can't see the difference between recruiting and winning or that no matter how well you recruit you have to win an most importantly if you are playing a ton of teams that offer much of the same things that you offer and you lose to them often recruits will not come to you.....and if you differentiate yourself and start to play teams that are not like you and not from your area you have a much better chance to climb out from that losing.....like TCU dd

See the bold section---never has happened and never will (and if it ever could happen, its FAR more likely to occur with all 12 in ONE single POWER CONFERENCE than it ever could with 4 in a P5 and the rest in various G5's).

I agree with the mathematics of the teams being in the same conference. Its the only thing you are correct about. Its a zero sum game---for every conference game won there is a loss borne by another conference team. That said---whats the definition of "good"? Bowl qualified?

If its bowl qualified, go 3-1 with a eazy-peezy OOC and the even crappy teams in a conference can get bowl qualified with a sad little 3-5 league record. They can be 2-6 in league play if they sweep an easy OOC and still get a bowl. Use the SEC as an example. They qualify several schools with losing league records for bowls every year.

(03-19-2015 01:23 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 12:23 PM)NTXCoog Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 10:06 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 01:43 AM)NTXCoog Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 04:30 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  you cannot do that for any of the teams in the SWC over 2 or 3 of them at the same time and that was 8 teams

In 1976, 3 Texas SWC teams were in the top 15.
In 1978, 3 Texas SWC teams were in the top 20.
In 1979, 3 Texas SWC teams were in the top 15.
In 1980, 2 Texas SWC teams were in the top 20.
In 1981, 2 Texas SWC teams were in the top 5.
In 1982, 2 Texas SWC teams were in the top 20.
In 1983, 2 Texas SWC teams were in the top 15.
In 1985, 2 Texas SWC teams were in the top 20.
In 1986, 2 Texas SWC teams were in the top 15.
In 1989, 3 Texas SWC teams were in the top 20.
In 1990, 3 Texas SWC teams were in the top 20.
In 1994, 2 Texas SWC teams were in the top 25.
In 1995, 3 Texas SWC teams were in the to 25.

That's just from the time UH joined the SWC. I know there are examples prior to that too (such as in 1974 when 3 were in the top 20). Arkansas was frequently ranked also during these years.

It would be hard to have more than 3 teams ranked when 7 of your 11 games would be against other Texas teams. You either have parity so no one is ranked or you have maybe 2 or 3 dominant teams ranked so the others have to have a bad record.

so you proved exactly what I said thanks for proving that for me

you listed a time span of 20 seasons and of those 20 seasons only 13 of them had 2 or 3 programs that were in the top 25 and NONE of them ever had more than 3 programs in the top 25

Ummm... read your point again. You said there was NO period of time when 2-3 Texas teams were in the top 25. NO period of time means 0% of the time. 65% of the time there were at least 2 in the top 25. That is MUCH more than NO period of time.

BTW: Much of the top there was not a top 25. Only top 20. Some TX schools were in others receiving vote that would have put them top 25.

PLUS you're comparing SWC vs the dominant SEC. By the same point, the Big 10, ACC, Big 12, and PAC 12 fail using the same standards because rarely do they have 50% of the teams ranked.

EDIT: I also didn't include Arkansas in the rankings. So many of the years that I have 2 or 3 listed, Arkansas was also ranked. 3 TX teams ranked plus Arkansas ranked does mean almost 50% of the teams were ranked at times.

it is you that needs to reread what I wrote

TodgeRodge Wrote: you cannot do that for any of the teams in the SWC over 2 or 3 of them at the same time and that was 8 teams

OVER 2 or 3 of them means MORE than 3

and again an all Texas conference drawing recruits from Texas which is a recruiting hotbed should be able to compete with the SEC and they should be able to compete with the Big 8 with recruiting "hot beds" like Colorado, Kansas and Iowa

but instead players left Texas in droves to go to CU, NU, OU and others in the big 8 and even more so others in the Big 10 Big East, SEC and PAC 10

trying to say that the SWC is an example of a successful conference with a very regional focus when the SWC failed is simply laughable

trying to say that the SWC had a lot of really successful teams over the long term when 4 of the 8 teams were left behind and relegated to non-P5 like conferences is simply laughable

the SWC was not a success period......too many teams going for the same recruits, too many teams with nothing to set them apart from others, too small of a market to capture a large viewing audience and 4 of the 8 teams were left behind when the SWC broke up

not to mention again that there are numerous examples of conferences with 4 or 5 teams in the same state at the P5 and G5 level and none of them have more then 2 teams in the same state at a time that are consistently successful and trying to use the SWC as an example of that when the SWC broke up and 4 teams were left behind is not a good example

and as for not including Arkansas......again that does not help your argument.....because Arkansas is in Arkansas not Texas.....and thus including Arkansas as an example of many teams in the same state all having sustained success at the same time is not useful because Arkansas is not n the same state as the 8 Texas teams

and again the examples with the SEC and Big 8 show that when teams are spread out amongst many states it is easier for those teams to differentiate themselves from one another and to have sustained success at the same time

this is not a discussion that a conference with 8 teams cannot have 50% of them successful at the same time or that a conference with 10 or 12 teams or even 14 teams cannot have 50% of them successful at the same time

this is a discussion about a conference with too many teams in the same state with little to set themselves apart from the others will have a lot less success having all those teams in the same state be successful at the same time or even more than a couple at a time and that can harm the conference in the long term like it did the SWC which broke apart and had half their members left behind

so again there was not a time that you showed when the SWC had more than (over) 2 or 3 three Texas teams all successful at the same time

and they had 3 TEXAS teams ranked 6 times out of the 25 seasons that is not really a great mark for an 8 team conference

again it is not about a CONFERENCE it is about the large number of teams in a conference from THE SAME STATE

we will make a fair comparison 8 teams from Texas in the SWC to 8 teams in the Big 8 from different states

1995 the Big 8 had 4 teams out of 8 ranked.....the 8 teams IN THE SAME STATE never achieved that in the SWC

1995 4
1994 2
1993 4
1992 3
1991 3
1990 3
1989 2
1988 3
1987 3
1986 2
1985 2
1984 3
1983 1
1982 2
1981 3
1980 2
1979 2
1978 3
1977 2
1976 5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Nebras...tball_team

so once again in 25 years the 8 TEXAS teams in the SWC when compared to the 8 teams in the Big 8 the 8 Texas teams had 3 ranked teams in the same year 6 seasons out of 25 and the 8 TEXAS teams had more than 3 ranked ZERO times

while the 8 teams in the Big 8 had 3 teams ranked in the same season 8 times......they had 4 teams ranked in the same season 2 times and 5 ranked in the same season 1 time

so again it is a comparison of 8 teams all in the same conferences......one conference with those 8 teams spread over 6 states the other conference using 8 teams in THE SAME STATE

including Arkansas does not refute the argument that too many teams in a conference IN THE SAME STATE dilutes the competitiveness of those teams because ARKANSAS IS NOT IN TEXAS.....it supports the argument that spreading teams out to different states makes it easier for more teams to be competitive at the same time in the same seasons

as does all of the evidence I presented above.....it is about TEAMS IN THE SAME STATE BEING GOOD AT THE SAME TIME....not about team sin a conference being good at the same time

and again part of the reason that 8 teams in recruiting hot beds like Kansas, Colorado and Iowa were able to do well relative to 8 teams in a recruiting death bed like TEXAS is because as the SWC had teams all fall off because they were feeding on each other recruits were leaving Texas in droves to places like OU, NU, CU and others even outside the Big 8

so again all 2available real world evidence over multiple seasons, using multiple G5 and P5 conferences in many configurations and in many regions of the country shows that it is difficult for 4 or more teams in the same conference in the same state to have sustained success at the same time

and here i was thinking that 3 > 2. How wrong I was.

But using your logic, the AAC and Sunbelt will become great conferences because they are geographically diverse while CUSA West will fail miserably because of 4 Texas teams. The Big 12 South was pretty bad too with too many TX Teams.[/quote]

And why didn't UNT succeed more in the Sunbelt when there weren't a ton of TX schools there? Why did they want to join the SWC then CUSA with all of the other TX schools?

(03-19-2015 01:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Security. A 16 team conference is stronger and more stable than an 8 team conference. No real concerns about a raid ending the conference.

A 16-school conference doesn't have to worry about a raid, but the chances of a rebellion go up exponentially, especially when you design it from the start with an intentional rift. Let the same couple of schools drag down the football payout metric a few years running, and see how long it takes someone to call a meeting at an airport.

That brings up another point. Adding numbers just for the sake of adding numbers can't help but harm any performance-based measure. 16 schools even being mediocre at the same time is a lot to ask, especially on the G5 level.

A 16-team conference is like communism. It's simply a flawed concept. Thinking, "Oh, the last people to try it just didn't do it right, and we'll make it work" is a mirage.

The 16-team WAC should be a cautionary tale to all those in favor of a 16 team conference. I don't even like the 14 team model.

(03-19-2015 03:14 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Having 16 total schools and scheduling agreements in basketball would only give networks more content from which to pull. We could find a way to schedule our best b-ball programs against one another. All the while, fans can conveniently travel to road games in their cars and increase gameday revenue for each school.

Yes, you've created more content by volume, but under this setup, it's going to have a limited regional appeal because the footprint of each conference is reduced, and there's very little incentive for one's fans to care about the other. It'd be like the MAC & the Sun Belt signing one contract with ESPN between them. A league can't simultaneously be compact for travel and expansive for TV.

Hold up. Now we're going to have "scheduling agreements" between the two for basketball, too? Well, crap, there goes some of that travel savings. I'm not even going to get into the issues with knowing who the best programs are going to be from one year to the next in order to make sure they play each other.

In the end, you can either have a big conference with all of its pros & cons, a small conference with all of its pros & cons, or you can try to spilt the difference. You can't force 10 pounds of ice into an 8-pound bag.

(03-19-2015 01:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 12:00 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 11:20 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 10:31 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 09:23 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  It's not that simple. If all CUSA members were in the same region, your argument would be valid. Crossover games increase travel costs and kills fan interest. No one in Houston cares to see Charlotte come to town, but they would be more likely to watch Texas State.

If you're adding Texas State so Charlotte doesn't have to travel to Houston, and presumably adding someone else in the East so Charlotte can visit them instead, then what on earth is the point of having Charlotte and the school in Houston in the same conference anymore?

Revenue? Only if you're saving enough on travel to pay out 2 additional full shares to 2 more schools.

Competitive profile? Well, now you've got 2 more schools to get past in order to win a championship, get an automatic post-season bid, earn a bowl, etc. so good luck with that.

Exposure? Please. The whole point of this endeavor was to regionalize everything more. Now the people in Houston REALLY don't give a crap about Charlotte because they never even see them.

Getting bigger so things can operate on a smaller scale is counterproductive and just adds an unnecessary step. If what you're after are distinct 8-school groups who don't interact with one another, splitting the conference would be a lot more efficient than expanding it.

You finally get it, two separate divions who's champions only meet in a championship game for football, and who's basketball divisions have scheduling agreements, but separate tournaments. All oylmpic sports stay separate. And I only used Charlotte as an example. I could have inserted any East school in their place. Wouldn't USM fans rather play ULL over FIU?

I totally get it. What you're advocating, though, is not an expanded conference of 16 members, it's 2 conferences of 8 members each connected in name only for one sport. Such a set-up would never work. It's just not feasible for two "divisions" to have that much autonomy and still operate under the same umbrella for any length of time. The minute the TV networks or the performance-based finances from the NCAA favor one side or the other, that side will drop the other side like a bad habit. Scheduling-wise, there's no point in keeping the 2 halves married. If the whole idea is to limit the long trips to once every 8 years or whatever, why even bother committing to an agreement for a game so rare? Using your own example, why should USM lock itself into going to UTEP in 8 years instead of just keeping that date open to go play East Carolina or Georgia Southern instead? If USM wanted to play ULL every year and Rice only twice a decade, we could just join the Sun Belt. Who knows? Maybe that'll be the way to go when it's all said & done.

The problem with these hypothetical realignments is everyone wants to create a new conference that's more convenient for their particular school, but they also want to stop short of leaving to start one. In every one of these fantasy scenarios, CUSA somehow stays intact, but has no reason to exist as an entity other than conveniently handing down its automatic bids, TV contracts, and bowl tie-ins.

Security. A 16 team conference is stronger and more stable than an 8 team conference. No real concerns about a raid ending the conference.

There are 61 G5 teams in a league (counting UAB still in and Navy to AAC) and three indys, BYU is a very special case (their "per team" payout from TV while not remotely P5 level is higher than any G5 league's per team). So let's say there are 63 true G5 counting UAB.

A 12 team G5 league represents 19% of the G5 television inventory. A 14 team league represents 22% of the TV inventory, and a 16 team league represents slightly over 25% of the TV inventory.

G5 TV inventory is important (not huge money important but important) because it fills the need weeknight content, the need for "off prime window" content on the top networks, the need for content by less watched networks (ESPNU, ESPN News, CBS Sports, Fox College, and ad hoc networks of regional telecasts such as multiple Fox Regionals and ASN).

These fill the spots that P5 either lacks inventory to fill or refuses to provide content to because of viewership.

ESPN addresses this with AAC, MWC, and MAC and fills in around that with Sun Belt

CBS addresses it with a blend of MWC, CUSA, and sublicensed AAC content.

Fox addresses it with CUSA.

MAC picked up a 500% increase in rights fees for broadcast windows and geography. They have the willingness to provide a lot of Tuesday/Wednesday content (which Sun Belt would also fill) but MAC has two leverage sticks Sun Belt lacks. One is proven good ratings when NIU is a buster contender (otherwise MAC school ratings are on par with AState games or worse in those windows) the other is geography.

ESPN has G5 content across most of the Sun Belt footprint thanks to the AAC. The MAC is the only G5 content available in the Midwest and the Midwest is the only region that has local interest in college football numbers in their markets similar to the south.

A larger G5 league has greater inventory share and thus more value by holding a greater supply of the resource. But when it comes to Fox and NBC there is only one place to get G5 content. The larger the swath of the country CUSA has presence, the better value. Now if it were a negotiation with ESPN and to a lesser degree CBS they can find replacement utility for CUSA because they have other available content of interest in the region.

Fox and NBC have the choice of grabbing as much G5 content as they can via CUSA or switching to alternate programming that is niche focused. ESPN has demonstrated there is value in G5 programming because more people will watch NIU play Ball State or Temple play UConn, or Nevada play Fresno than will watch Poker or sailing.

(03-19-2015 03:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  See the bold section---never has happened and never will (and if it ever could happen, its FAR more likely to occur with all 12 in ONE single POWER CONFERENCE than it ever could with 4 in a P5 and the rest in various G5's).

I agree with the mathematics of the teams being in the same conference. Its the only thing you are correct about. Its a zero sum game---for every conference game won there is a loss borne by another conference team. That said---whats the definition of "good"? Bowl qualified?

If its bowl qualified, go 3-1 with a eazy-peezy OOC and the even crappy teams in a conference can get bowl qualified with a sad little 3-5 league record. They can be 2-6 in league play if they sweep an easy OOC and still get a bowl. Use the SEC as an example. They qualify several schools with losing league records for bowls every year.

UH fans are the masters of the strawman argument and masters of ignoring the obvious

1. it would be impossible to have more than a very few good Texas teams in a 12 team conference because as soon as some of those teams sift to the bottom they will lose recruits to top teams in conference and more importantly to top teams out of conference

and the more they sift to the bottom the less likely it is they will draw a recruit from out of state that is decent at any position

and "good" would be a top 25 team and again it is not just a discussion about conferences and good and bad teams it is specific to the number of teams from the same state in the conference in question

2. again you toss out a strawman of P5 VS G5.......and again no matter if you look at P5 or G5 conferences when you view the conference itself and what the 4 teams from the same state do relative to other teams in that conference and relative to each other and sometimes even relative to other teams in different conferences what I am saying holds true

answer this....from 1990 (25 seasons) what team had more success long term.....TCU, Texas Tech or Baylor.....one team in a G5 conference and two teams in a P5 conference.....two teams in a conference with 4 Texas teams and one team that had sustained success once they were in a conference with no other Texas teams

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/act..._polls.php

TCU was ranked 10 times in 25 seasons and they were ranked in the top 10 four times and 5 times if you average the 11/9 ranking and their highest rank was #2....outside of a P5 conference they were ranked 9 times in 25 seasons and the highest was still #2 and they were on the top 10 3 times or 4 if you average the 9/11 season and they played in two BCS games and won one of them when not in a P5 conference

Texas Tech

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/act..._polls.php

six times in the top 25, never in the top 10 and highest rank #12

Baylor

ranked 3 times in 25 seasons and one time in the top 10 and played in 1 BCS game and lost it

so when you compare TCU outside of a P5 conference they are better than both Texas Tech and Baylor COMBINED......because TCU was ranked 9 times just like Baylor and Tech COMBINED.....TCU had more top 10 finishes, a higher total finish and TCU had more BCS appearances and more BCS wins

lets compare TCU to Texas A&M as well

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/act..._polls.php

ranked 12 times, 4 times in the top 10, highest rank was #5 and they had a single BCS loss

so even using your G5 P5 strawman it is clear that TCU in a conference alone with no other Texas teams was able to have a much higher level of success than two P5 teams in a conference with 4 Texas teams and really TCU was as good or really better than A&M as well especially when you look at the later years and when you consider there is an advantage for getting ranked or a BCS game out of a P5 conference

so TCU easily surpassed and was even with (and really better) than 3 out of the 4 Texas teams all in a P5 conference when TCU was in a G5 conference.....not to mention that A&M was able to gain traction and improve WHEN THEY LEFT THE CONFERENCE WITH 4 TEXAS TEAMS

again compare UNC, NCState, Duke and WF to ECU

ECU ranked 2 times in 25 seasons

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/act..._polls.php

highest rank #9

WF and Duke

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/act..._polls.php

Duke ranked 1 time in 25 years and highest rank #22

WF

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/act..._polls.php

ranked 2 times in 25 years highest #17

so ECU in a G5 conference has accomplished basically as much as Duke and WF combined in a P5 conference

ECU ranked 2 times highest #9.....WF and Duke ranked 3 times combined highest #17

so again there is clearly no advantage to Duke and WF playing 3 other NC teams every year and also doing so in a P5 conference and ECU alone in their G5 conference is as good or better on a consistent basis

and NC and NC State are better than ECU overall, but again they are hardly examples of long term sustained success

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/act..._polls.php

ranked 5 times highest #5 and not ranked since the late 90s

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/act..._polls.php

NC State ranked 5 times and highest #11


so again even using the P5 G5 strawman what you are claiming does not hold water

only if you look at the California teams does it show where P5 and G5 makes a difference and still it is clear that Cal and Stanford have struggled to sustain long term success and even UCLA has struggled while only USC has done s consistently

cal ranked 4 times in 25 seasons highest #9

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/act.../index.php

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/act..._polls.php

UCLA ranked 7 times highest #5

Stanford

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/act..._polls.php

8 times highest #4

so again from 3 of the 4 California schools in a P5 conference TCU was better than all of them and was better than UCLA and Cal combined

TCU as a G5 team finished higher ranked than any of them did.....had more BCS wins that UCLA and Cal combined and only 1 less BCS win than Stanford

so again there is ample evidence that having too many teams in the same conference in the same state hurts those teams and it clearly provides no benefit

(03-19-2015 03:23 PM)NTXCoog Wrote:  and here i was thinking that 3 > 2. How wrong I was.

But using your logic, the AAC and Sunbelt will become great conferences because they are geographically diverse while CUSA West will fail miserably because of 4 Texas teams. The Big 12 South was pretty bad too with too many TX Teams.

And why didn't UNT succeed more in the Sunbelt when there weren't a ton of TX schools there? Why did they want to join the SWC then CUSA with all of the other TX schools?
[/quote]

3 is not more than over 3.......that is where you are wring, but you knew that you just wanted to try and make a strawman......and again over 2-3 teams means 4 or more.....because 3 = 3......3 is not > 3

and just for your information north Texas state went to 4 bowl games in a row when they were the only team in the Sunbelt (2001 - 2012)from Texas that was more bowl games than the rest of their history combined and it was more bowl games than SMU went to in that same period and time (3)

and Rice went to 3 as well

UH went to 7

but again you are trying to frame an argument I am not making....I am not saying that when you are on your won in a conference that guarantees that you would do better than if you were in a conference with more Texas teams (and specifically 4 or more)....I am simply saying that there is ample evidence that having 4 teams in the same conference from the same state be it a G5 or a P5 and even when you compare some P5 to G5 teams can harm those programs with many teams from the same state in the same conference and there is very clearly no benefit to it

because TCU as a G5 (excluding last year as a P5) was clearly a better team over the last 25 years than Duke, WF, NC State, UNC, Cal, Texas Tech, Baylor and UCLA and they were at least equal to A&M and right there with Stanford.....and that is as a G5 program VS all those P5 teams in 3 different conferences

and ECU was as good or better than Duke and WF as a G5 Vs P5 and UNC and NC State are hardly showing any benefit from being in a P5 with WF and Duke as well

and even G5 to G5 north Texas state had their best years consistently in the Sunbelt as the only Texas team.....they had a good year last year (especially for them), but they quickly fell off the map and they look to continue to decline for the near term future now that they have the coveted "Many Texas Teams"

so only USC, Texas and UH out of those teams and conferences did overall much better than their fellow in state in conference teams

again being alone is not a guarantee if you have crappy facilities, a crappy budget and a crappy administration and fan support (ah la north Texas state) your success might be fleeting, but if you combine that with more Texas teams in the same conference you can look to fall even further even faster

so again your strawmwn fail and your attempts to break the discussion into little pieces that you feel you can "win" fails as well

there is simply nothing at all to suggest a benefit from having 4 or more teams from the same state in the same conference G5 or P5 and even sometimes comparing P5 to G5 and simple math says the more that teams in the same state and the same conference play each other the possibility and the inevitability of them dropping off increases

and while it is not a guarantee if you reduce those teams playing each other in the same conference it gives a much greater mathematical opportunity for many more of them to have success and that can even be G5 to P5 as TCU clearly shows and as ECU shows compared to WF and Duke

only in California can you really not find a G5 team that compares to the 4 P5 state teams and that is because Fresno and SJSU and SDSU are often in the same conference as well and thus hold each other back

(03-19-2015 04:13 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  A 12 team G5 league represents 19% of the G5 television inventory. A 14 team league represents 22% of the TV inventory, and a 16 team league represents slightly over 25% of the TV inventory.
...
A larger G5 league has greater inventory share and thus more value by holding a greater supply of the resource. But when it comes to Fox and NBC there is only one place to get G5 content. The larger the swath of the country CUSA has presence, the better value.

All well and good in a zero-sum game, but every school added is another school getting a cut of that revenue. It's not just about volume, it's about income vs. expenditure. If it were only about sheer numbers, the whole G5 would just unite and negotiate TV rights as one entity. I doubt anybody at BYU or in the AAC is interested in splitting the money evenly 61 ways right now.

(03-19-2015 03:51 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 01:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Security. A 16 team conference is stronger and more stable than an 8 team conference. No real concerns about a raid ending the conference.

A 16-school conference doesn't have to worry about a raid, but the chances of a rebellion go up exponentially, especially when you design it from the start with an intentional rift. Let the same couple of schools drag down the football payout metric a few years running, and see how long it takes someone to call a meeting at an airport.

That brings up another point. Adding numbers just for the sake of adding numbers can't help but harm any performance-based measure. 16 schools even being mediocre at the same time is a lot to ask, especially on the G5 level.

A 16-team conference is like communism. It's simply a flawed concept. Thinking, "Oh, the last people to try it just didn't do it right, and we'll make it work" is a mirage.

We have watched the impact of free market TV negotiations since 1983.

Since 1983, one FBS league has gone completely out of business, two have gone out of the football business, and a fourth divided and spun off its football operations.

Of the 14 leagues to play I-A/FBS football since 1983 only the Big 10, Pac-12, and SEC have not lost a school to realignment raids. That's 7 of the current 10 who have been raided and all have lost members in the past five years.

Every conference not named the SEC, Big Ten, or Pac-12 is by definition unstable.

We have seen 16 tried and failed twice. WAC16 could not address the issue of a core group of schools playing each other. So they went to 8 and later 9 but they still ended up losing a third of their membership as a nine team league.

Big East tried it but at their core they had the same problem that led to the Big West dropping out of the football business, they could not retain the members who offered value in football and basketball and the expansion options diluted the basketball product dramatically so that when they wanted to shift from TV distribution being 2/3rds hoops 1/3rd football to 70% football and 30% hoops the hoops members no longer wished to accomodate football.

But is another number better? CUSA started with a 6/12 format, moved to an 8/12, eventually 11/14 format and in one year lost 7 members who opted to move elsewhere and nudged two more out the door.

Then CUSA adopted a 12/12 format and less than a decade later lost two-thirds of that membership.

Smaller formats are no more stable than 16.

The numbers have nothing to do with stability UNLESS the numbers prevent schools who wish to play each other regularly from doing so.

CUSA at 13 is no more or no less stable than it would be at 16. The reality is that if CUSA is at 16 and the eastern or western group thinks it is better breaking away and adding some teams, they will do so just as they will do if CUSA is at 12, 13, or 14.

(03-19-2015 04:36 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 04:13 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  A 12 team G5 league represents 19% of the G5 television inventory. A 14 team league represents 22% of the TV inventory, and a 16 team league represents slightly over 25% of the TV inventory.
...
A larger G5 league has greater inventory share and thus more value by holding a greater supply of the resource. But when it comes to Fox and NBC there is only one place to get G5 content. The larger the swath of the country CUSA has presence, the better value.

All well and good in a zero-sum game, but every school added is another school getting a cut of that revenue. It's not just about volume, it's about income vs. expenditure. If it were only about sheer numbers, the whole G5 would just unite and negotiate TV rights as one entity. I doubt anybody at BYU or in the AAC is interested in splitting the money evenly 61 ways right now.

That's just it though. Which is more valuable to you? Spending $100 on a business activity that produces $200 in income or spending $50 on a business activity that produces $150 income? If you are on Wall Street the correct answer is the latter activity because of the return on investment but in either case you still net $100.

If ODU can replace a $90,000 football charter flight with a $25,000 bus trip, or can replace a replace a $30,000 baseball trip by air with a $10,000 bus trip, the numbers add up. If Marshall can reduce the time the football team is on the road by a few hours so that once less meal is eaten while traveling, that's a $1000 savings. Shaving two or three hours off a baseball trip to eliminate one meal on the way out and one on the way back saves $600.

Why have the AD's at ODU and MTSU tossed out the names JMU and Liberty? Because they think the savings can offset the cost of sharing league revenue with them.

This presents a real challenge because while MTSU, WKU, Marshall, ODU, and Charlotte can experience pretty substantial savings with an addition in Virginia, there is no such savings for FIU or FAU and there is no single school out west that can produce similar savings for five western schools.

That is the obstacle to 16 because if JMU or Liberty is one piece of the puzzle the western piece is harder to deal with because the amount of savings on the western side is less and as you work through potential schools the three offering the greatest potential savings share media markets with other CUSA schools and would produce direct competition for TV news coverage, newspaper space, and radio time. The ones not directly competing for local media coverage don't provide savings to a significant number of western schools.

That's the biggest problem getting to 16 and I don't think you solve it unless TV says we want more inventory.

(03-19-2015 04:33 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 03:16 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  See the bold section---never has happened and never will (and if it ever could happen, its FAR more likely to occur with all 12 in ONE single POWER CONFERENCE than it ever could with 4 in a P5 and the rest in various G5's).

I agree with the mathematics of the teams being in the same conference. Its the only thing you are correct about. Its a zero sum game---for every conference game won there is a loss borne by another conference team. That said---whats the definition of "good"? Bowl qualified?

If its bowl qualified, go 3-1 with a eazy-peezy OOC and the even crappy teams in a conference can get bowl qualified with a sad little 3-5 league record. They can be 2-6 in league play if they sweep an easy OOC and still get a bowl. Use the SEC as an example. They qualify several schools with losing league records for bowls every year.

UH fans are the masters of the strawman argument and masters of ignoring the obvious

1. it would be impossible to have more than a very few good Texas teams in a 12 team conference because as soon as some of those teams sift to the bottom they will lose recruits to top teams in conference and more importantly to top teams out of conference

and the more they sift to the bottom the less likely it is they will draw a recruit from out of state that is decent at any position

and "good" would be a top 25 team and again it is not just a discussion about conferences and good and bad teams it is specific to the number of teams from the same state in the conference in question

2. again you toss out a strawman of P5 VS G5.......and again no matter if you look at P5 or G5 conferences when you view the conference itself and what the 4 teams from the same state do relative to other teams in that conference and relative to each other and sometimes even relative to other teams in different conferences what I am saying holds true

answer this....from 1990 (25 seasons) what team had more success long term.....TCU, Texas Tech or Baylor.....one team in a G5 conference and two teams in a P5 conference.....two teams in a conference with 4 Texas teams and one team that had sustained success once they were in a conference with no other Texas teams

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/act..._polls.php

TCU was ranked 10 times in 25 seasons and they were ranked in the top 10 four times and 5 times if you average the 11/9 ranking and their highest rank was #2....outside of a P5 conference they were ranked 9 times in 25 seasons and the highest was still #2 and they were on the top 10 3 times or 4 if you average the 9/11 season and they played in two BCS games and won one of them when not in a P5 conference

Texas Tech

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/act..._polls.php

six times in the top 25, never in the top 10 and highest rank #12

Baylor

ranked 3 times in 25 seasons and one time in the top 10 and played in 1 BCS game and lost it

so when you compare TCU outside of a P5 conference they are better than both Texas Tech and Baylor COMBINED......because TCU was ranked 9 times just like Baylor and Tech COMBINED.....TCU had more top 10 finishes, a higher total finish and TCU had more BCS appearances and more BCS wins

lets compare TCU to Texas A&M as well

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/act..._polls.php

ranked 12 times, 4 times in the top 10, highest rank was #5 and they had a single BCS loss

so even using your G5 P5 strawman it is clear that TCU in a conference alone with no other Texas teams was able to have a much higher level of success than two P5 teams in a conference with 4 Texas teams and really TCU was as good or really better than A&M as well especially when you look at the later years and when you consider there is an advantage for getting ranked or a BCS game out of a P5 conference

so TCU easily surpassed and was even with (and really better) than 3 out of the 4 Texas teams all in a P5 conference when TCU was in a G5 conference.....not to mention that A&M was able to gain traction and improve WHEN THEY LEFT THE CONFERENCE WITH 4 TEXAS TEAMS

again compare UNC, NCState, Duke and WF to ECU

ECU ranked 2 times in 25 seasons

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/act..._polls.php

highest rank #9

WF and Duke

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/act..._polls.php

Duke ranked 1 time in 25 years and highest rank #22

WF

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/act..._polls.php

ranked 2 times in 25 years highest #17

so ECU in a G5 conference has accomplished basically as much as Duke and WF combined in a P5 conference

ECU ranked 2 times highest #9.....WF and Duke ranked 3 times combined highest #17

so again there is clearly no advantage to Duke and WF playing 3 other NC teams every year and also doing so in a P5 conference and ECU alone in their G5 conference is as good or better on a consistent basis

and NC and NC State are better than ECU overall, but again they are hardly examples of long term sustained success

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/act..._polls.php

ranked 5 times highest #5 and not ranked since the late 90s

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/act..._polls.php

NC State ranked 5 times and highest #11


so again even using the P5 G5 strawman what you are claiming does not hold water

only if you look at the California teams does it show where P5 and G5 makes a difference and still it is clear that Cal and Stanford have struggled to sustain long term success and even UCLA has struggled while only USC has done s consistently

cal ranked 4 times in 25 seasons highest #9

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/act.../index.php

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/act..._polls.php

UCLA ranked 7 times highest #5

Stanford

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/act..._polls.php

8 times highest #4

so again from 3 of the 4 California schools in a P5 conference TCU was better than all of them and was better than UCLA and Cal combined

TCU as a G5 team finished higher ranked than any of them did.....had more BCS wins that UCLA and Cal combined and only 1 less BCS win than Stanford

so again there is ample evidence that having too many teams in the same conference in the same state hurts those teams and it clearly provides no benefit

(03-19-2015 03:23 PM)NTXCoog Wrote:  and here i was thinking that 3 > 2. How wrong I was.

But using your logic, the AAC and Sunbelt will become great conferences because they are geographically diverse while CUSA West will fail miserably because of 4 Texas teams. The Big 12 South was pretty bad too with too many TX Teams.

And why didn't UNT succeed more in the Sunbelt when there weren't a ton of TX schools there? Why did they want to join the SWC then CUSA with all of the other TX schools?

3 is not more than over 3.......that is where you are wring, but you knew that you just wanted to try and make a strawman......and again over 2-3 teams means 4 or more.....because 3 = 3......3 is not > 3

and just for your information north Texas state went to 4 bowl games in a row when they were the only team in the Sunbelt (2001 - 2012)from Texas that was more bowl games than the rest of their history combined and it was more bowl games than SMU went to in that same period and time (3)

and Rice went to 3 as well

UH went to 7

but again you are trying to frame an argument I am not making....I am not saying that when you are on your won in a conference that guarantees that you would do better than if you were in a conference with more Texas teams (and specifically 4 or more)....I am simply saying that there is ample evidence that having 4 teams in the same conference from the same state be it a G5 or a P5 and even when you compare some P5 to G5 teams can harm those programs with many teams from the same state in the same conference and there is very clearly no benefit to it

because TCU as a G5 (excluding last year as a P5) was clearly a better team over the last 25 years than Duke, WF, NC State, UNC, Cal, Texas Tech, Baylor and UCLA and they were at least equal to A&M and right there with Stanford.....and that is as a G5 program VS all those P5 teams in 3 different conferences

and ECU was as good or better than Duke and WF as a G5 Vs P5 and UNC and NC State are hardly showing any benefit from being in a P5 with WF and Duke as well

and even G5 to G5 north Texas state had their best years consistently in the Sunbelt as the only Texas team.....they had a good year last year (especially for them), but they quickly fell off the map and they look to continue to decline for the near term future now that they have the coveted "Many Texas Teams"

so only USC, Texas and UH out of those teams and conferences did overall much better than their fellow in state in conference teams

again being alone is not a guarantee if you have crappy facilities, a crappy budget and a crappy administration and fan support (ah la north Texas state) your success might be fleeting, but if you combine that with more Texas teams in the same conference you can look to fall even further even faster

so again your strawmwn fail and your attempts to break the discussion into little pieces that you feel you can "win" fails as well

there is simply nothing at all to suggest a benefit from having 4 or more teams from the same state in the same conference G5 or P5 and even sometimes comparing P5 to G5 and simple math says the more that teams in the same state and the same conference play each other the possibility and the inevitability of them dropping off increases

and while it is not a guarantee if you reduce those teams playing each other in the same conference it gives a much greater mathematical opportunity for many more of them to have success and that can even be G5 to P5 as TCU clearly shows and as ECU shows compared to WF and Duke

only in California can you really not find a G5 team that compares to the 4 P5 state teams and that is because Fresno and SJSU and SDSU are often in the same conference as well and thus hold each other back
[/quote]

Let me get this straight--TCU is the poster child for your theory. Yet TCU's run of success began in the WAC (which had 4 Texas teams at the time), continued in in CUSA (which they shared with Houston), then extended into the MW years (no other Texas teams), and has resurfaced after some rookie struggles after stepping up in a class in the B-12 (which has 4 Texas teams). Thanks for making my point. It hasn't mattered how many Texas teams are in the conference TCU is in. They have done well regardless.

It seems to me that the TCU success is more about having a good coach and the consistency of excellence that can spring from keeping that coach for a long period of time. I think the fortunes of CUSA's 4 Texas teams ride on the quality of their coaching and will have little to do with number of Texas schools in their conference. Don't bother with another novelette, we are not debating the equal rights amendment. I agree you can have too many Texas schools in a conference and that having all the Texas schools in one conference does create winners and losers---though their identities will change from year to year. I think 4-6 Texas teams in a single conference makes a lot of sense as it spurs rivalries, eases travel costs, and allows for visiting fans to bolster attendance numbers.

there are multiple problems with the "control the most content" argument

1. G5 conferences (and really all conferences) have two things to gain from a TV contract....money and exposure.....for a G5 exposure is just as important because the the greatly reduced amount of money

if each game along with pre and post game takes 4 hours that means in a 12 hour period you can show 3 games and in a 16 hour period 4 games....so from 11am to 11pm you can show 3 games and from 9:30am to 1:30am you could show 4 games

if those are OOC games that means at most 4 of your teams will get on per channel.....in conference then 8 of your teams get on per channel

so for a 16 team conference playing OOC games you would need 2 channels showing games from 9:30am to 1:30 am to fit in the games to fit in all the games if half of your teams had their OOc game at home and the other half were on the road (games belong to the other conference)......in conference you would still need that same two channels showing during that same time period

sure there are weeknight games and by weeks ect, but still you need 2 channels showing games for pretty much all the hours of the day you could remotely expect people to watch football.....and when you have two channels those games compete with each other for viewers and that lessens the value of those games overall unless you find a way to have two media partners and even then one of those partners is going to want to pick the prime games and pay a premium and the other will have the lesser picks and thus will pay less.....and it is doubtful that a G5 will get two media partners

if you only have 8 teams in a conference or 12 teams max that means you can go to one media partner, offer them all the choices and they can fill the day on their channel with your games and some weeknight games and by weeks as well to help reduce the single day load

sure your games still compete with all the other games on at that same time of day, but when your own conference games compete with each other and when your own conference games have to be spread to two channels by a single media partner it is my opinion that lessens the value

2. who gets the crappiest time slots.....who gets the 9:30am to 2:30 game and who gets the 9:30pm to 1:30am game

this goes double if you have a very large conference that is in a very small region because of the time zones.....now if you have a 12 team conference or an 8 team conference and you can spread that for two or even three time zones suddenly some of those bad time slots are pretty decent time slots for other time zones and their fans

3. stAtefan addressed this in relation to a different point......when you play OOC games those games move from having meaning to just your conference and the teams playing the game and some other "conference" fans and fans of other conference teams to having meaning to the fans of the other conference and the teams in the other conference.....this goes back to what I say about the REAL issue with the Big 12 and 9 conference games.....you gain strength for a conference not by putting the name of a "major program" in your uniform and then all beating up on each other......you gain strength by putting your uniform on and going to another conference and whipping the crap out of their teams......you take the win.....they take the beatdown

when you play in the OOC especially if it is the better teams from each conference that has meaning to many more fans from both conferences

and specific to "exposure".....when you play an away game against a top team in another conference there is a very good chance that game gets picked up by their media partner and in a prime slot......you do not get the money, but you do get the exposure.....and at the same time if you are a good team and it is a good OOC game.....you just took a prime slot potentially from up to two other conferences

if Team A and Team B in conference X and Y play in a prime slot......and then Team C in Conference X plays Team D in Conference Z and their game is relegated to a lesser slot or a lesser channel......well Team B from Conference Y has picked up exposure in a prime slot and they have sent Team C in X and Team D in Z to a lesser slot

if you are playing less OOC games then you have in effect automatically sent more of your conference games to the lesser slots and channels

and when you are in a large conference (especially one that plays 9 conference games) you are increasing the chances dramatically that your teams hit lesser slots and lesser channels and you are decreasing the likelihood of games tha thave meaning outside of your conference

so again for a G5 conference the smartest thing to do would be to have between 8 to 10 teams spread over at least 2 time zones if not 3 and play 7 or 8 conference games and sell those games to a single media partner with most all of them set to air on a single channel or to air in better slots on the available channels

when you add more teams and especially more conference games and even more so in a smaller geographic area you decrease the relevance and the value of your games dramatically

it would be smartest for team in the eastern and central time zone to reach out to mountain zone teams and then teams in the pacific and mountain to reach out to some central time zone teams.....all with 12 or fewer teams and 7 or 8 in conference games.....and of course a limited (3 or less) number of teams in the same state

but of course that will never happen because people simply can't grasp that reality they are stuck thinking like yesteryear and thinking about what others do (even often to their detriment) instead of looking at things from a fresh perspective and realizing where conference strength and exposure comes from and how games take the broadest meaning to the most viewers

The dissertation thread.

(03-19-2015 05:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 04:36 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 04:13 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  A 12 team G5 league represents 19% of the G5 television inventory. A 14 team league represents 22% of the TV inventory, and a 16 team league represents slightly over 25% of the TV inventory.
...
A larger G5 league has greater inventory share and thus more value by holding a greater supply of the resource. But when it comes to Fox and NBC there is only one place to get G5 content. The larger the swath of the country CUSA has presence, the better value.

All well and good in a zero-sum game, but every school added is another school getting a cut of that revenue. It's not just about volume, it's about income vs. expenditure. If it were only about sheer numbers, the whole G5 would just unite and negotiate TV rights as one entity. I doubt anybody at BYU or in the AAC is interested in splitting the money evenly 61 ways right now.

That's just it though. Which is more valuable to you? Spending $100 on a business activity that produces $200 in income or spending $50 on a business activity that produces $150 income? If you are on Wall Street the correct answer is the latter activity because of the return on investment but in either case you still net $100.

If ODU can replace a $90,000 football charter flight with a $25,000 bus trip, or can replace a replace a $30,000 baseball trip by air with a $10,000 bus trip, the numbers add up. If Marshall can reduce the time the football team is on the road by a few hours so that once less meal is eaten while traveling, that's a $1000 savings. Shaving two or three hours off a baseball trip to eliminate one meal on the way out and one on the way back saves $600.

Why have the AD's at ODU and MTSU tossed out the names JMU and Liberty? Because they think the savings can offset the cost of sharing league revenue with them.

This presents a real challenge because while MTSU, WKU, Marshall, ODU, and Charlotte can experience pretty substantial savings with an addition in Virginia, there is no such savings for FIU or FAU and there is no single school out west that can produce similar savings for five western schools.

That is the obstacle to 16 because if JMU or Liberty is one piece of the puzzle the western piece is harder to deal with because the amount of savings on the western side is less and as you work through potential schools the three offering the greatest potential savings share media markets with other CUSA schools and would produce direct competition for TV news coverage, newspaper space, and radio time. The ones not directly competing for local media coverage don't provide savings to a significant number of western schools.

That's the biggest problem getting to 16 and I don't think you solve it unless TV says we want more inventory.

Looking at a map, it looks to me the one school that might save everyone money is Texas St. It turns every UTSA athletic trip into a virtual 2-for-1 for every sports team in the conference. It seems over the course of a year, that would be a substantial per team savings over the trips to Birmingham I assume Texas State would be replacing. So, when Marshall traveled to UTSA, they would get the benefit of a 45 minute bus ride to get a second game at Texas State. From there, its a 3hr bus ride to Rice. That kinda savings has got to add up.

(03-18-2015 03:40 PM)billings Wrote:  smartest thing TCU did was to brand themselves as different from the other similar texas schools. They made a very smart move going to the MWC and standing alone in Texas.

NMSU trying to package would insure that UTEP never gets in the MWC

you may have forgotten that the other schools left tcu . not the other way around..only baylor and smu are similar to tcu in that they are all wealthy church schools. except for smu, they are much stronger now than they were when the swc broke up. the mwc was their lifeboat not a conference they were striving to get into..

(03-19-2015 05:35 PM)runamuck Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 03:40 PM)billings Wrote:  smartest thing TCU did was to brand themselves as different from the other similar texas schools. They made a very smart move going to the MWC and standing alone in Texas.

NMSU trying to package would insure that UTEP never gets in the MWC

you may have forgotten that the other schools left tcu . not the other way around..only baylor and smu are similar to tcu in that they are all wealthy church schools. except for smu, they are much stronger now than they were when the swc broke up. the mwc was their lifeboat not a conference they were striving to get into..

TCU went to WAC after the SWC disbanded. That was their lifeboat after the SWC collapse. They left the WAC-16 (before it broke up) to join CUSA. After a few years in CUSA, they left to join the MW.

(03-19-2015 05:04 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Let me get this straight--TCU is the poster child for your theory. Yet TCU's run of success began in the WAC (which had 4 Texas teams at the time), continued in in CUSA (which they shared with Houston), then extended into the MW years (no other Texas teams), and has resurfaced after some rookie struggles after stepping up in a class in the B-12 (which has 4 Texas teams). Thanks for making my point. It hasn't mattered how many Texas teams are in the conference TCU is in. They have done well regardless.

It seems to me that the TCU success is more about having a good coach and the consistency of excellence that can spring from keeping that coach for a long period of time. I think the fortunes of CUSA's 4 Texas teams ride on the quality of their coaching and will have little to do with number of Texas schools in their conference. Don't bother with another novelette, we are not debating the equal rights amendment. I agree you can have too many Texas schools in a conference and that having all the Texas schools in one conference does create winners and losers---though their identities will change from year to year. I think 4-6 Texas teams in a single conference makes a lot of sense as it spurs rivalries, eases travel costs, and allows for visiting fans to bolster attendance numbers.

here is what you fail ti understand.....it is not just a single team discussion you want to break it down to that because you feel it does not make you wrong

TCU was in the WAC until 2001....they were first ranked in 2000

what were the other 3 teams in the WAC doing in 2000....well UTEP was 804 and Rice was 3-8 and SMU was 3-9

so again the discussion is not that a single team can have sustained success in a conference with 3 other teams from the same state because Texas and USC prove that true

is is a discussion about that grouping of state schools and the dynamics around them

so again 4 Texas teams one was really good, one was good and two sucked in the WAC in 2000

2001 in CUSA.....last time I checked TCU and UH is two teams not four teams.....so once again you have claimed a "win" of a point that was not up for discussion.....the discussion is about 4 teams in the same state in the same conference not 2

and in 2001 TCU was 6-6 and UH was 0-11....so again both of those teams suck so that does not point to "success" especially for UH

but of course TCU had a coaching change from Fran to Patterson and a conference change...that matters

but in the WAC in 2001 Rice was 8-4 and SMU was 4-7 and UTEP was 2-9

in 2002 TCU 10-2 UH 5-7
2003 TCU 11-2 UH 7-6
2004 TCU 5-6 UH 3-8
2005 TCU goes to the MWC and 11-1

2002 WAC Rice 4-7 SMU 3-9 UTEP 2-10
2003 WAC Rice 5-7 UTEP 2-10 SMU 0-12
2004 UTEP 8-4, Rice 3-8 SMU 3-8


2005 SMU, Rice and UTEP move to CUSA with UH

UTEP 8-4, UH 6-6, SMU 5-6 and Rice 1-10

2006 UH 10-4 Rice 7-6 SMU 6-6 UTEP 5-7
2007 UH 8-5, Rice 3-9, SMU 1-11 UTEP 4-8
2008 Rice 10-3 UH 8-5 SMU 1-11 UTEP 5-7
2009 UH 10-4 SMU 8-5 UTEP 4-8 Rice 2-10
2010 SMU 7-7 UH 5-7 UTEP 5-7 Rice 4-8
2011 UH 13-1 SMU 8-5 Rice 4-8 and UTEP 5-7
2012 SMU 7-6 Rice 7-6 UH 5-7 and UTEP 3-9

so again single teams out of 4 can have good years....but there will never be a year when 3 much less 4 of those teams will even be good or even just OK or better.....and there is never a period of time when any more than one single team can sustain long term success and in the case of the WAC and CUSA that was never

for the Big 12 it was Texas....for the PAC 12 it was USC.....and there are not going to be a great deal of examples besides TCU because there are not many states that have 4 D1-A teams much less 4 D1-A teams in the same conference much less that have 5 D1-A teams in any conference

it would be NC, Texas, Louisiana, Ohio, Alabama, Florida Michigan, Tennessee and California with 4 or more D1-A teams

and again only Texas, Ohio, NC and California have 4 or more teams in a single conference

and there is never an example of any time when any of those 4 teams in any of those single conferences in any of those states were all good or even decent at the same time and there is no time when even 3 of them were good to decent

but there are times when those states with more than 4 D1-A teams had multiple teams that were good to even great......but of course they were in different conferences like Florida, Miami and FSU with only 2 in the same conference and then

again states can have more than a couple of good D1-A teams....conferences can have many good teams in the same conference.....but what you will never find an example of is when a conference with 4 or more teams in the same state have 3 or more of those teams as good or even decent probably for even a single year much less a couple of years

there is ZERO benefit shown for 4 teams in the same conference and the same state and every example that you look at be it P5 or G5 it shows it is next to impossible for more than two of those 4 teams to be good at one time and usually if one of them is great and sustains that either 2 of the others will totally suck or there will be a rotation of who is the decent team below that great team

again over and over again conference to conference P5 to G5 coast to coast it is simply not a fluke....and the examples of states with many D1-A teams and more than a couple being good it is always with teams in multiple conferences never the same one conference especially not the one with 4 teams from that same state

pick all the singular points and strawmen you wish that does not change the total point or the glaring lack of evidence to prove otherwise or the glaring amount of evidence to support the notion that 4 teams in one conference from the same state is detrimental to those 4 teams long term