(03-26-2015 10:06 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  Why would CUSA teams agree to that. Didn't CUSA just finish ranked ahead of the AAC last season in football, and CUSA is outperforming the AAC in basketball so far (was the AAC the only G5 conference whose champion did not win their 1st round game in NCAA?).

Seems to me that the AAC needs to worry a little more about actually performing before they go trying to run college sports. Give it another season or two and there may not even be an AAC based on the results so far.

That would be a "no". CUSA was the one bid conference that's kicking out their basketball champ (lots of big brains working overtime on that work of genius). Despite having a down year, the AAC is the multi-bid conference who's second team advanced before being eliminated by that the Sherman tank that is Kentucky. The AAC is also the conference with 3-NIT entries. You probably need to get a clue before you brag on how much better CUSA is than other conferences.


PS--As you are a person who clearly dislikes the AAC, the NIT bracket might just end up with a final you should find interesting.

(03-26-2015 10:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 10:06 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  Why would CUSA teams agree to that. Didn't CUSA just finish ranked ahead of the AAC last season in football, and CUSA is outperforming the AAC in basketball so far (was the AAC the only G5 conference whose champion did not win their 1st round game in NCAA?).

Seems to me that the AAC needs to worry a little more about actually performing before they go trying to run college sports. Give it another season or two and there may not even be an AAC based on the results so far.

That would be a "no". CUSA was the one bid conference that's kicking out their basketball champ (lots of big brains working overtime on that work of genius). Despite having a down year, the AAC is the multi-bid conference who's second team advanced before being eliminated by that the Sherman tank that is Kentucky. The AAC is also the conference with 3-NIT entries. You probably need to get a clue before you brag on how much better CUSA is than other conferences.


PS--As you are a person who clearly dislikes the AAC, the NIT bracket might just end up with a final you should find interesting.

These C-USA fans crack me up, they want to be in the AAC with the big boys so bad it hurts. They need to focus on their small time conference and leave the athletics to schools that actually have reputations for it.

(03-26-2015 05:46 PM)HamiltonJames Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 12:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  My theory is that unless a school is in a conference making ~$20 million in TV money, it doesn't make sense to associate with schools on the other side of the country - at least not via a common conference. Instead, such a school would be best served by forming/joining a small regional conference with likeminded institutions and then scheduling national games as needed.

The trouble is - they aren't like-minded. Some schools want tight regionalization - those with limited resources. Those with resources would rather spend a few bucks than to get suffocated with regionalization.
The aren't like-minded academically either. These are educational institutions after all. They vary greatly in mission and devotion to research. And if you don't think academics - selectivity and research - matter, you haven't been paying attention.

Hence the reason for keeping the conferences small. Finding 8 schools that are reasonably likeminded is doable. Sure there might be one or two outliers in one regard or another, but they will match in others. However, finding 12-16 isn't.

(03-26-2015 06:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 12:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 09:44 AM)prisonmike Wrote:  The thought behind all of this is to rethink the G5 conferences (For FB only). Instead of being competitors, poaching from one another, and putting each other down why not strive to exist as one conference together? I mean we only have one spot in the new CFP anyway. I say lets restructure the conferences based on Geography.

My theory is that unless a school is in a conference making ~$20 million in TV money, it doesn't make sense to associate with schools on the other side of the country - at least not via a common conference. Instead, such a school would be best served by forming/joining a small regional conference with likeminded institutions and then scheduling national games as needed. Ideally, conference schools should be able to maximize game attendance and interest by associating with schools in driving distance or, at the very least, with fan bases that overlap/touch. Furthermore, schools would be best served by aligning with other schools of comparable academic stature and values. As such, the advertising aspect of athletics could be maximized.

Therefore, I think that the g5 should split into 8/9 team regional conferences that are fairly homogeneous. I honestly think that such an arrangement would maximize revenue, minimize costs, and improve the gameday atmosphere (i.e. much of the school's value proposition to recruits).

EDIT: Also, to the extent that anyone thinks that TV money is better with bigger conferences, these mini conferences could bundle content and sell it as packages. I'm not sure that it would make a tangible difference, but the option is still there, and the same goes for bowls.

EDIT 2: Finally, I know that these mini conferences would be too small for CCG's, but how much do those really make at the g5 level?

You have to understand, that's exactly what we have. The G5 schools have gravitated together with like minded institutions that they believe are their "peers". As P5's have formed, some G5 have been separated from the nearby regional groups that they considered like minded or peers. Thus, these "left out" schools had to travel farther to find similar schools in similar situations. That's why we have todays geographic mish-mash. The schools that have agreed to be together are together. Your suggesting that groups that have chosen not to be together should---simply be together due to geography---other factors be darned. In some cases it might work, in others, it might not be a great match due to the schools just not seeing the "like minded" part of their geographical grouping.

That's one issue to overcome. The second is money. Some conferences make more than others. If everyone makes the same amount, then the more highly paid will be getting less and the more poorly paid will see a pay increase. So, essentially, the former group is not going to see much value in that---the latter group will be all for the change.

1. "The G5 schools have gravitated together with like minded institutions"
Remind me what UH and UConn have in common. Or, take a stab at SMU and Temple, Temple and Tulsa, and ECU and Tulane. The above examples (and many more) show that the g5 has clearly not gravitated to groupings of "likeminded institutions."

2. "Your [sic] suggesting that groups that have chosen not to be together should---simply be together due to geography---other factors be darned."
I am very clearly not. See the parts of my post that you bolded, where I explicitly mention other factors - "with likeminded institutions" and "schools would be best served by aligning with other schools of comparable academic stature and values."

3. "The second is money. Some conferences make more than others."
No, they really don't - at least not to a material extent on the g5 level. Anyway, there's more than just TV money. There are donations, merchandise, and gameday-related revenue streams (i.e. advertisements, ticket sales, concessions, etc.). Those would all improve.

(03-26-2015 02:25 PM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 01:17 PM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  The problem is every G5 school wants so badly to be in the AAC that they try to configure different "dream" scenarios that involve the AAC's demise.

LOL, speak for yourself. I'd much rather go independent than ever try to hop into bed with the Bait-and-Switch Conference again. And double-LOL if you actually are under the delusion that the AAC will ever be a power conference. If the MWC with TCU, Utah, and BYU wasn't allowed into the club, they really aren't going to share their prestige with a conference full of teams that strive for 9 wins and the Beef O'Brady Bowl.

To be fair, losing the BCS tie-in wasn't in the AAC's control and it wasn't a secret that it was going to happen. BSU knew, or should have know, what it was getting into.

(03-26-2015 10:26 PM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  These C-USA fans crack me up, they want to be in the AAC with the big boys so bad it hurts. They need to focus on their small time conference and leave the athletics to schools that actually have reputations for it.

Um, USF used to be in a "big boy" conference. Not anymore, the AAC is far from it.

Yes, overall, we are a stronger conference than CUSA. But at this point, that's like having the longest p*nis under 4 inches. Nothing "big" about it. And CUSA did beat us in football, the sport that drives the bus. As of now, the G5 football score is CUSA 1, AAC 0.

Everyone in the G5 is on a sinking ship. Some of us are on a deck just a bit farther from the water line than others.

this in-fighting is exactly what the creators of this blatantly discriminatory sports league want, we're like lobsters in a pot. What we need is a unified voice against this corrupt cronyism and demand that a direct path to a national championship game be created for everyone, like there is in EVERY other sports league on earth.

G5 is a classification that was invented to keep half the league poor so the other half could stay rich. It's like the concept of "preexisting conditions" in health insurance, preexisting conditions was a concept invented by greedy insurance companies as a way to justify discrimination against people who could negatively impact their profitability. That's exactly what the terms P5/G5 are designed to do.

We need to stop trying to figure out how to improve being a G5 and instead figure out how to destroy the label all together. The P5 needs us more than we need them, they just hope we don't figure it out.

(03-27-2015 08:20 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  this in-fighting is exactly what the creators of this blatantly discriminatory sports league want, we're like lobsters in a pot. What we need is a unified voice against this corrupt cronyism and demand that a direct path to a national championship game be created for everyone, like there is in EVERY other sports league on earth.

G5 is a classification that was invented to keep half the league poor so the other half could stay rich. It's like the concept of "preexisting conditions" in health insurance, preexisting conditions was a concept invented by greedy insurance companies as a way to justify discrimination against people who could negatively impact their profitability. That's exactly what the terms P5/G5 are designed to do.

We need to stop trying to figure out how to improve being a G5 and instead figure out how to destroy the label all together. The P5 needs us more than we need them, they just hope we don't figure it out.

I doubt that's the case. Pretty sure the P5 is capable of doing just fine without the G5.

(03-27-2015 08:41 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I doubt that's the case. Pretty sure the P5 is capable of doing just fine without the G5.

Except for the one detail that if the P5 had only itself to schedule in football, half of them would not qualify for a post-season bowl. Now, almost everyone not named Kansas, Indiana, Syracuse or Washington State gets to play in the post-season even when four of those wins came from the likes of Connecticut, Eastern Michigan, Southern Mississippi and Hawaii.

(03-27-2015 03:11 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 06:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 12:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 09:44 AM)prisonmike Wrote:  The thought behind all of this is to rethink the G5 conferences (For FB only). Instead of being competitors, poaching from one another, and putting each other down why not strive to exist as one conference together? I mean we only have one spot in the new CFP anyway. I say lets restructure the conferences based on Geography.

My theory is that unless a school is in a conference making ~$20 million in TV money, it doesn't make sense to associate with schools on the other side of the country - at least not via a common conference. Instead, such a school would be best served by forming/joining a small regional conference with likeminded institutions and then scheduling national games as needed. Ideally, conference schools should be able to maximize game attendance and interest by associating with schools in driving distance or, at the very least, with fan bases that overlap/touch. Furthermore, schools would be best served by aligning with other schools of comparable academic stature and values. As such, the advertising aspect of athletics could be maximized.

Therefore, I think that the g5 should split into 8/9 team regional conferences that are fairly homogeneous. I honestly think that such an arrangement would maximize revenue, minimize costs, and improve the gameday atmosphere (i.e. much of the school's value proposition to recruits).

EDIT: Also, to the extent that anyone thinks that TV money is better with bigger conferences, these mini conferences could bundle content and sell it as packages. I'm not sure that it would make a tangible difference, but the option is still there, and the same goes for bowls.

EDIT 2: Finally, I know that these mini conferences would be too small for CCG's, but how much do those really make at the g5 level?

You have to understand, that's exactly what we have. The G5 schools have gravitated together with like minded institutions that they believe are their "peers". As P5's have formed, some G5 have been separated from the nearby regional groups that they considered like minded or peers. Thus, these "left out" schools had to travel farther to find similar schools in similar situations. That's why we have todays geographic mish-mash. The schools that have agreed to be together are together. Your suggesting that groups that have chosen not to be together should---simply be together due to geography---other factors be darned. In some cases it might work, in others, it might not be a great match due to the schools just not seeing the "like minded" part of their geographical grouping.

That's one issue to overcome. The second is money. Some conferences make more than others. If everyone makes the same amount, then the more highly paid will be getting less and the more poorly paid will see a pay increase. So, essentially, the former group is not going to see much value in that---the latter group will be all for the change.

1. "The G5 schools have gravitated together with like minded institutions"
Remind me what UH and UConn have in common. Or, take a stab at SMU and Temple, Temple and Tulsa, and ECU and Tulane. The above examples (and many more) show that the g5 has clearly not gravitated to groupings of "likeminded institutions."

2. "Your [sic] suggesting that groups that have chosen not to be together should---simply be together due to geography---other factors be darned."
I am very clearly not. See the parts of my post that you bolded, where I explicitly mention other factors - "with likeminded institutions" and "schools would be best served by aligning with other schools of comparable academic stature and values."

3. "The second is money. Some conferences make more than others."
No, they really don't - at least not to a material extent on the g5 level. Anyway, there's more than just TV money. There are donations, merchandise, and gameday-related revenue streams (i.e. advertisements, ticket sales, concessions, etc.). Those would all improve.

1). UConn, Temple, Houston, SMU, ext---the thing the AAC members have in common is that they are the next group that are lying just outside of the P5 line. This is the group with the highest athletics budgets that are trying to get into the power 5.

2). Yes, you mention other factors, but then simply group everyone by region.

3). Yes the entire G5 gets little compared to the P5. That said, how many AD's do you know who are interested in throwing away 2 million dollars a year in order to get one million a year? Hell, the MAC teams kicked out a member just to get an extra 100K a year.

All I'm saying is that the mish mash that currently exists in the G5 is about schools self organizing into mutually agreed upon peer groups. I'm not sure where you disagree. Are you actually arguing they they didn't agree to be together?

(03-27-2015 08:20 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  . It's like the concept of "preexisting conditions" in health insurance, preexisting conditions was a concept invented by greedy insurance companies as a way to justify discrimination against people who could negatively impact their profitability. That's exactly what the terms P5/G5 are designed to do.

Having to pay bills for those who already have a serious sickness is not insurance. There is no way for a company to come close to breaking even, if they have to take that account. With insurance you get coverage for a possible loss, not a guaranteed one. There is a reason insurance rates went up 25% last year, and preexisting conditions is a big part of that.

(03-26-2015 10:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 10:06 PM)CurveItAround Wrote:  Why would CUSA teams agree to that. Didn't CUSA just finish ranked ahead of the AAC last season in football, and CUSA is outperforming the AAC in basketball so far (was the AAC the only G5 conference whose champion did not win their 1st round game in NCAA?).

Seems to me that the AAC needs to worry a little more about actually performing before they go trying to run college sports. Give it another season or two and there may not even be an AAC based on the results so far.

That would be a "no". CUSA was the one bid conference that's kicking out their basketball champ (lots of big brains working overtime on that work of genius). Despite having a down year, the AAC is the multi-bid conference who's second team advanced before being eliminated by that the Sherman tank that is Kentucky. The AAC is also the conference with 3-NIT entries. You probably need to get a clue before you brag on how much better CUSA is than other conferences.


PS--As you are a person who clearly dislikes the AAC, the NIT bracket might just end up with a final you should find interesting.

ODU-Miami?

(03-27-2015 08:53 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 08:20 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  . It's like the concept of "preexisting conditions" in health insurance, preexisting conditions was a concept invented by greedy insurance companies as a way to justify discrimination against people who could negatively impact their profitability. That's exactly what the terms P5/G5 are designed to do.

Having to pay bills for those who already have a serious sickness is not insurance. There is no way for a company to come close to breaking even, if they have to take that account. With insurance you get coverage for a possible loss, not a guaranteed one. There is a reason insurance rates went up 25% last year, and preexisting conditions is a big part of that.

All true but preexisting conditions was still a gaping hole in our health care system.

(03-27-2015 08:53 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 08:20 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  . It's like the concept of "preexisting conditions" in health insurance, preexisting conditions was a concept invented by greedy insurance companies as a way to justify discrimination against people who could negatively impact their profitability. That's exactly what the terms P5/G5 are designed to do.

Having to pay bills for those who already have a serious sickness is not insurance. There is no way for a company to come close to breaking even, if they have to take that account. With insurance you get coverage for a possible loss, not a guaranteed one. There is a reason insurance rates went up 25% last year, and preexisting conditions is a big part of that.

my point was, the concept was created as a means to protect the profitability of some at the expense of others.

(03-27-2015 08:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 03:11 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 06:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 12:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 09:44 AM)prisonmike Wrote:  The thought behind all of this is to rethink the G5 conferences (For FB only). Instead of being competitors, poaching from one another, and putting each other down why not strive to exist as one conference together? I mean we only have one spot in the new CFP anyway. I say lets restructure the conferences based on Geography.

My theory is that unless a school is in a conference making ~$20 million in TV money, it doesn't make sense to associate with schools on the other side of the country - at least not via a common conference. Instead, such a school would be best served by forming/joining a small regional conference with likeminded institutions and then scheduling national games as needed. Ideally, conference schools should be able to maximize game attendance and interest by associating with schools in driving distance or, at the very least, with fan bases that overlap/touch. Furthermore, schools would be best served by aligning with other schools of comparable academic stature and values. As such, the advertising aspect of athletics could be maximized.

Therefore, I think that the g5 should split into 8/9 team regional conferences that are fairly homogeneous. I honestly think that such an arrangement would maximize revenue, minimize costs, and improve the gameday atmosphere (i.e. much of the school's value proposition to recruits).

EDIT: Also, to the extent that anyone thinks that TV money is better with bigger conferences, these mini conferences could bundle content and sell it as packages. I'm not sure that it would make a tangible difference, but the option is still there, and the same goes for bowls.

EDIT 2: Finally, I know that these mini conferences would be too small for CCG's, but how much do those really make at the g5 level?

You have to understand, that's exactly what we have. The G5 schools have gravitated together with like minded institutions that they believe are their "peers". As P5's have formed, some G5 have been separated from the nearby regional groups that they considered like minded or peers. Thus, these "left out" schools had to travel farther to find similar schools in similar situations. That's why we have todays geographic mish-mash. The schools that have agreed to be together are together. Your suggesting that groups that have chosen not to be together should---simply be together due to geography---other factors be darned. In some cases it might work, in others, it might not be a great match due to the schools just not seeing the "like minded" part of their geographical grouping.

That's one issue to overcome. The second is money. Some conferences make more than others. If everyone makes the same amount, then the more highly paid will be getting less and the more poorly paid will see a pay increase. So, essentially, the former group is not going to see much value in that---the latter group will be all for the change.

1. "The G5 schools have gravitated together with like minded institutions"
Remind me what UH and UConn have in common. Or, take a stab at SMU and Temple, Temple and Tulsa, and ECU and Tulane. The above examples (and many more) show that the g5 has clearly not gravitated to groupings of "likeminded institutions."

2. "Your [sic] suggesting that groups that have chosen not to be together should---simply be together due to geography---other factors be darned."
I am very clearly not. See the parts of my post that you bolded, where I explicitly mention other factors - "with likeminded institutions" and "schools would be best served by aligning with other schools of comparable academic stature and values."

3. "The second is money. Some conferences make more than others."
No, they really don't - at least not to a material extent on the g5 level. Anyway, there's more than just TV money. There are donations, merchandise, and gameday-related revenue streams (i.e. advertisements, ticket sales, concessions, etc.). Those would all improve.

1). UConn, Temple, Houston, SMU, ext---the thing the AAC members have in common is that they are the next group that are lying just outside of the P5 line. This is the group with the highest athletics budgets that are trying to get into the power 5.

2). Yes, you mention other factors, but then simply group everyone by region.

3). Yes the entire G5 gets little compared to the P5. That said, how many AD's do you know who are interested in throwing away 2 million dollars a year in order to get one million a year? Hell, the MAC teams kicked out a member just to get an extra 100K a year.

all I'm saying is that the mish mash that currently exists in the G5 is about schools self organizing into mutually agreed upon peer groups. I'm not sure where you disagree. Are you acyptually arguing they they didn't agree to be together?

Agreed, while not all institutions are academic peers...groups of peers do exist within the conference. Shared history is another bond among the groups of schools. Most have been in multiple conferences/alliances together going back decades in some instances. IMO, it really does come down to $ though. Most are aligned fairly closely across categories...budgets, tix sales, donations, salaries, apparel contracts... The means and commitment to spend $ is the there in order to compete at the highest level.

(03-27-2015 08:51 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 08:41 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I doubt that's the case. Pretty sure the P5 is capable of doing just fine without the G5.

Except for the one detail that if the P5 had only itself to schedule in football, half of them would not qualify for a post-season bowl. Now, almost everyone not named Kansas, Indiana, Syracuse or Washington State gets to play in the post-season even when four of those wins came from the likes of Connecticut, Eastern Michigan, Southern Mississippi and Hawaii.

exactly. In 2014 the SEC had 56 non conference game and 56 conference games on its schedule. Of the 56 OOC games, 45 of those were vs non P5 competition. Not coincidentally, 47 of those 56 OOC games were home games.

Here's a breakdown of the SEC's 2014 non conference results-

5-6 vs P5
44-1 vs non-P5
44-3 home games
5-4 away games

Against teams with similar financial resources and/or vs teams on the road the mighty SEC is suddenly a very average, dare I say- mediocre, conference. Huh, who would have guessed? As these results clearly demonstrate, there is NO WAY IN HELL the SEC, or any other P5 conference, will ever willingly move to an all P5 non conference schedule because it expose their big lie.

By keeping half of the league poor through a 70%/27% revenue split that gives the P5 an extra $900M more than G5 over the next 12 years the P5 can continue to rig the system in their favor. On top of the massive increase in losses the P5 would experience by eliminating the G5 teams from their schedule they would also take an incredible hit in lost ticket revenue. No more 47/56 home games, now it would be an even split of 28/56. That's a decrease of 19 home games and all of the revenue/fan support that comes with it.

Again, the P5 needs us a lot more than we need them.

(03-27-2015 03:11 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 06:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 12:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 09:44 AM)prisonmike Wrote:  The thought behind all of this is to rethink the G5 conferences (For FB only). Instead of being competitors, poaching from one another, and putting each other down why not strive to exist as one conference together? I mean we only have one spot in the new CFP anyway. I say lets restructure the conferences based on Geography.

My theory is that unless a school is in a conference making ~$20 million in TV money, it doesn't make sense to associate with schools on the other side of the country - at least not via a common conference. Instead, such a school would be best served by forming/joining a small regional conference with likeminded institutions and then scheduling national games as needed. Ideally, conference schools should be able to maximize game attendance and interest by associating with schools in driving distance or, at the very least, with fan bases that overlap/touch. Furthermore, schools would be best served by aligning with other schools of comparable academic stature and values. As such, the advertising aspect of athletics could be maximized.

Therefore, I think that the g5 should split into 8/9 team regional conferences that are fairly homogeneous. I honestly think that such an arrangement would maximize revenue, minimize costs, and improve the gameday atmosphere (i.e. much of the school's value proposition to recruits).

EDIT: Also, to the extent that anyone thinks that TV money is better with bigger conferences, these mini conferences could bundle content and sell it as packages. I'm not sure that it would make a tangible difference, but the option is still there, and the same goes for bowls.

EDIT 2: Finally, I know that these mini conferences would be too small for CCG's, but how much do those really make at the g5 level?

You have to understand, that's exactly what we have. The G5 schools have gravitated together with like minded institutions that they believe are their "peers". As P5's have formed, some G5 have been separated from the nearby regional groups that they considered like minded or peers. Thus, these "left out" schools had to travel farther to find similar schools in similar situations. That's why we have todays geographic mish-mash. The schools that have agreed to be together are together. Your suggesting that groups that have chosen not to be together should---simply be together due to geography---other factors be darned. In some cases it might work, in others, it might not be a great match due to the schools just not seeing the "like minded" part of their geographical grouping.

That's one issue to overcome. The second is money. Some conferences make more than others. If everyone makes the same amount, then the more highly paid will be getting less and the more poorly paid will see a pay increase. So, essentially, the former group is not going to see much value in that---the latter group will be all for the change.

1. "The G5 schools have gravitated together with like minded institutions"
Remind me what UH and UConn have in common. Or, take a stab at SMU and Temple, Temple and Tulsa, and ECU and Tulane. The above examples (and many more) show that the g5 has clearly not gravitated to groupings of "likeminded institutions."

2. "Your [sic] suggesting that groups that have chosen not to be together should---simply be together due to geography---other factors be darned."
I am very clearly not. See the parts of my post that you bolded, where I explicitly mention other factors - "with likeminded institutions" and "schools would be best served by aligning with other schools of comparable academic stature and values."

3. "The second is money. Some conferences make more than others."
No, they really don't - at least not to a material extent on the g5 level. Anyway, there's more than just TV money. There are donations, merchandise, and gameday-related revenue streams (i.e. advertisements, ticket sales, concessions, etc.). Those would all improve.

So explain to me how donations, ticket sales, advertisements, etc. would improve. As a UCF fan, this realignment would lead to a sharp decline in all of these areas. Now, maybe it benefits Ga. Southern, but that's not an increase in revenue streams, it's simply a redistribution. And a redistribution would simply increase the gap between the G5 and P5.

(03-27-2015 03:14 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 02:25 PM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 01:17 PM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  The problem is every G5 school wants so badly to be in the AAC that they try to configure different "dream" scenarios that involve the AAC's demise.

LOL, speak for yourself. I'd much rather go independent than ever try to hop into bed with the Bait-and-Switch Conference again. And double-LOL if you actually are under the delusion that the AAC will ever be a power conference. If the MWC with TCU, Utah, and BYU wasn't allowed into the club, they really aren't going to share their prestige with a conference full of teams that strive for 9 wins and the Beef O'Brady Bowl.

To be fair, losing the BCS tie-in wasn't in the AAC's control and it wasn't a secret that it was going to happen. BSU knew, or should have know, what it was getting into.

We were all set to stay with the Big East even after losing the AQ status - then they failed to live up to their promise to add more West schools, and lost more than 78% of their membership.

(03-27-2015 08:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 03:11 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 06:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 12:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 09:44 AM)prisonmike Wrote:  The thought behind all of this is to rethink the G5 conferences (For FB only). Instead of being competitors, poaching from one another, and putting each other down why not strive to exist as one conference together? I mean we only have one spot in the new CFP anyway. I say lets restructure the conferences based on Geography.

My theory is that unless a school is in a conference making ~$20 million in TV money, it doesn't make sense to associate with schools on the other side of the country - at least not via a common conference. Instead, such a school would be best served by forming/joining a small regional conference with likeminded institutions and then scheduling national games as needed. Ideally, conference schools should be able to maximize game attendance and interest by associating with schools in driving distance or, at the very least, with fan bases that overlap/touch. Furthermore, schools would be best served by aligning with other schools of comparable academic stature and values. As such, the advertising aspect of athletics could be maximized.

Therefore, I think that the g5 should split into 8/9 team regional conferences that are fairly homogeneous. I honestly think that such an arrangement would maximize revenue, minimize costs, and improve the gameday atmosphere (i.e. much of the school's value proposition to recruits).

EDIT: Also, to the extent that anyone thinks that TV money is better with bigger conferences, these mini conferences could bundle content and sell it as packages. I'm not sure that it would make a tangible difference, but the option is still there, and the same goes for bowls.

EDIT 2: Finally, I know that these mini conferences would be too small for CCG's, but how much do those really make at the g5 level?

You have to understand, that's exactly what we have. The G5 schools have gravitated together with like minded institutions that they believe are their "peers". As P5's have formed, some G5 have been separated from the nearby regional groups that they considered like minded or peers. Thus, these "left out" schools had to travel farther to find similar schools in similar situations. That's why we have todays geographic mish-mash. The schools that have agreed to be together are together. Your suggesting that groups that have chosen not to be together should---simply be together due to geography---other factors be darned. In some cases it might work, in others, it might not be a great match due to the schools just not seeing the "like minded" part of their geographical grouping.

That's one issue to overcome. The second is money. Some conferences make more than others. If everyone makes the same amount, then the more highly paid will be getting less and the more poorly paid will see a pay increase. So, essentially, the former group is not going to see much value in that---the latter group will be all for the change.

1. "The G5 schools have gravitated together with like minded institutions"
Remind me what UH and UConn have in common. Or, take a stab at SMU and Temple, Temple and Tulsa, and ECU and Tulane. The above examples (and many more) show that the g5 has clearly not gravitated to groupings of "likeminded institutions."

2. "Your [sic] suggesting that groups that have chosen not to be together should---simply be together due to geography---other factors be darned."
I am very clearly not. See the parts of my post that you bolded, where I explicitly mention other factors - "with likeminded institutions" and "schools would be best served by aligning with other schools of comparable academic stature and values."

3. "The second is money. Some conferences make more than others."
No, they really don't - at least not to a material extent on the g5 level. Anyway, there's more than just TV money. There are donations, merchandise, and gameday-related revenue streams (i.e. advertisements, ticket sales, concessions, etc.). Those would all improve.

1). UConn, Temple, Houston, SMU, ext---the thing the AAC members have in common is that they are the next group that are lying just outside of the P5 line. This is the group with the highest athletics budgets that are trying to get into the power 5.

2). Yes, you mention other factors, but then simply group everyone by region.

3). Yes the entire G5 gets little compared to the P5. That said, how many AD's do you know who are interested in throwing away 2 million dollars a year in order to get one million a year? Hell, the MAC teams kicked out a member just to get an extra 100K a year.

All I'm saying is that the mish mash that currently exists in the G5 is about schools self organizing into mutually agreed upon peer groups. I'm not sure where you disagree. Are you actually arguing they they didn't agree to be together?

I can't reply in detail on my phone, but:

1. I would be amazed if you feel an intrinsic desire to play any of the eastern schools.
2. I didn't make any proposed groups. I'm not sure what you're talking about.
3. You're only looking at TV money and are ignoring costs and intangible benefits. Assuming that the average ticket is worth $25 (tickets, donations, concessions, merchandise, etc), $100,000 on lost TV would be offset by 4,000 additional tickets sold over a 6.5 game home schedule. That's a shave over 600 per game. That sounds supremely reachable to me.

I'm arguing that the conferences constructs created in a world with high transaction costs, historical legacies, and poor management. So no, I don't think they are optimally arranged.

(03-27-2015 12:15 PM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  

(03-27-2015 03:14 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 02:25 PM)BoiseStateOfMind Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 01:17 PM)GreenWave16 Wrote:  The problem is every G5 school wants so badly to be in the AAC that they try to configure different "dream" scenarios that involve the AAC's demise.

LOL, speak for yourself. I'd much rather go independent than ever try to hop into bed with the Bait-and-Switch Conference again. And double-LOL if you actually are under the delusion that the AAC will ever be a power conference. If the MWC with TCU, Utah, and BYU wasn't allowed into the club, they really aren't going to share their prestige with a conference full of teams that strive for 9 wins and the Beef O'Brady Bowl.

To be fair, losing the BCS tie-in wasn't in the AAC's control and it wasn't a secret that it was going to happen. BSU knew, or should have know, what it was getting into.

We were all set to stay with the Big East even after losing the AQ status - then they failed to live up to their promise to add more West schools, and lost more than 78% of their membership.

I'm not sure you can blame the AAC for the C7 walkout. What could they realistically have done? Anyway, wasn't BSU a football-only? What do you care about the C7? Lastly, who else was going to be added out west? I know SDSU was going to come and BYU and Air Force were asked (and they declined). But, I cant think of anyone out west with any value other than those schools.