Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
AAC MWC Response to Title Game Deregulation
Author Message
Dasville Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,796
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 246
I Root For: UofL
Location:
Post: #21
RE: AAC MWC Response to Title Game Deregulation
The AAC should add the 6 remaining Big 12 teams (after deregulation is voted down) and then add Army and BYU. Go to 20 with 2 divisions and play an 8 game schedule. Because Army and Navy refuse to reschedule their game, they are not eligible for the Conference Championship game. Consider Army and Navy an OOC game within the Conference. Look to the former BE as a model for basketball.
The AAC and MWC should never work together.
That is a good Conference and if you add rivalry game. I bet nobody is too disappointed.04-rock
05-03-2015 09:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sactowndog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,100
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 114
I Root For: Fresno State Texas A&M
Location:
Post: #22
RE: AAC MWC Response to Title Game Deregulation
(05-03-2015 07:27 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-03-2015 03:19 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  
(05-03-2015 01:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I d rather do something a little more limited----12+6+3 is a little better in my view. Take the current AAC, add the top 6 MW schools and form a 3rd division of all MW teams. Then add 3 non-football schools to add a lttile extra punch to the basketball strength. East gets VCU, Central gets Wichita, and west gets BYU Olympic sports. Eight game football schedule (5 division games + 3 crossovers), home-and-home divisional basketball schedule of 12 games with 3 crossovers in the each division (results in just 3 long travel games a year), and non-revenue sports largely play divisional schedules with a just a little crossover to minimize travel expenses. You get just as good a football conference, probably a better basketball conference, and you split the money less ways while still getting decent nationwide coverage. That kind of nationwide conference will dominate the G5 access bowl, be a top 3 basketball conference, and be a very attractive media property for a national cable sports network.

Couple other thoughts on your 6-6-6 model besides the negative connotation of the configuration?.

There is no clear six. If you try for the top six football schools to pull in Boise: SDSU, Fresno, Utah State, Colorado State and Air Force you have left out key basketball schools and important rivalries.

Then assume you drop Fresno and Utah State for UNLV and New Mexico, a conference with Fresno, Nevada and Utah State would easily add Idaho and New Mexico State and Boise would keep their sweetheart TV deal and stay put. Not only that but the travel would be bad for SDSU again with no instate rivalries.

By going 8-8-8 Boise would have to choose going independent and loosing access to the access bowl ala BYU or giving up their sweet heart deal and joining the rest of us.

The other problem with the six proposal is once you make it you risk being counter attacked and having six split off from the ACC. You risk this anyway if you lose top teams to the P-5. Remember Boise went last year and Fresno would have gone the previous year.

My choice would be---

Boise
Fresno
SDSU
New Mexico
AF
UNLV or Colorado St

BYU Olympics

That's your top football schools, an Academy, a state flagship basketball power, and another solid basketball school. I know Utah St has performed very well the last few years and they certainly have potential, but I would go with the more established brands. It think the above group is probably the best 6 to build a western division around. My inclination would be to take UNLV over CSU, but I wouldn't really argue with taking CSU in their place (lots of investments indicate a real commitment to athletics). Im not worried about Boise staying in the remaining MW because it will be too gutted. They will have a serious SOS issue and percetption issues if they stay behind. Besides, I'm pretty sure the 18 team AAC with 3 non-FB schools will garner a nice paycheck for its members. I doubt Boise will want to stay behind in a diminished MW. For all the other MW members, the nationwide conference will represent a pay increase (frankly, I think Boise will make more as well).

Well as a fresno fan it would work for me but I would never underestimate Kustras greed and what Wyoming and C State might pull if you left them out. Your plan might work or it might backfire like the last one which left SDSU high and dry.
05-04-2015 12:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,011
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 732
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #23
RE: AAC MWC Response to Title Game Deregulation
(05-03-2015 01:38 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Minor point but you've only got seven schools in the western division; you need to add Hawaii. Also you left Temple out of the east and have Tulane twice.

I've been critical of "best of the rest" proposals but this one might work because neither conference would have to split itself apart, and the travel for non-fotball sports doesn't have to be any worse than it is today (my solution for basketball would be to remain divided into 11-team east and west divisions for the regular season, since Hawaii and Navy would be football-only members; the top 6 from each side could go to the conference tournament).


Might add Eastern Washington to the west.
North Dakota State in the central.
Georgia Southern, Marshall or Northern Illinois to the east. You get some good teams from other conferences in as well.
05-04-2015 01:55 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,011
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 732
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #24
RE: AAC MWC Response to Title Game Deregulation
I do think San Jose State and UNLV should move back to the others of New Mexico State and Idaho. Those 2 are not cutting it in football right now. That could restart the formation of the WAC. Bring BYU back in, and add Eastern Washington as the replacement.

Central?
You have:
Montana
Montana State
North Dakota State
Northern Iowa
UTEP
UTSA
West Texas A&M
Colorado State-Peublo are strong in football. Add Wichita State if they decide to restart football. The new AD there said that football is not ruled out for Wichita State.
Arkansas State
La-Lafayette
Lamar
Texas State

East:
Northern Illinois
Toledo
Ohio U.
Georgia Southern
Appalachian State
James Madison
JAcksonville State
Army
Delaware
Illinois State
U. Mass.

Are all good. You might see taken the best from the rest with MWC and AAC? Sun Belt, MAC, MVFC and C-USA could move teams around as well.
05-04-2015 02:13 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sactowndog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,100
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 114
I Root For: Fresno State Texas A&M
Location:
Post: #25
RE: AAC MWC Response to Title Game Deregulation
(05-04-2015 01:55 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  
(05-03-2015 01:38 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Minor point but you've only got seven schools in the western division; you need to add Hawaii. Also you left Temple out of the east and have Tulane twice.

I've been critical of "best of the rest" proposals but this one might work because neither conference would have to split itself apart, and the travel for non-fotball sports doesn't have to be any worse than it is today (my solution for basketball would be to remain divided into 11-team east and west divisions for the regular season, since Hawaii and Navy would be football-only members; the top 6 from each side could go to the conference tournament).


Might add Eastern Washington to the west.
North Dakota State in the central.
Georgia Southern, Marshall or Northern Illinois to the east. You get some good teams from other conferences in as well.

Should we lose teams to the P5 Northern Illinois would be a good replacement.
05-04-2015 09:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
lew240z Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 699
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 23
I Root For: Wyoming
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Post: #26
RE: AAC MWC Response to Title Game Deregulation
(05-04-2015 02:13 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I do think San Jose State and UNLV should move back to the others of New Mexico State and Idaho. Those 2 are not cutting it in football right now. That could restart the formation of the WAC. Bring BYU back in, and add Eastern Washington as the replacement.

Central?
You have:
Montana
Montana State
North Dakota State
Northern Iowa
UTEP
UTSA
West Texas A&M
Colorado State-Peublo are strong in football. Add Wichita State if they decide to restart football. The new AD there said that football is not ruled out for Wichita State.
Arkansas State
La-Lafayette
Lamar
Texas State

East:
Northern Illinois
Toledo
Ohio U.
Georgia Southern
Appalachian State
James Madison
JAcksonville State
Army
Delaware
Illinois State
U. Mass.

Are all good. You might see taken the best from the rest with MWC and AAC? Sun Belt, MAC, MVFC and C-USA could move teams around as well.

I assume that you are not aware that CSU-Pueblo is D2 and is very happy there. Not only do they not have the money to move to FCS, let alone FBS. CSU-Pueblo saw the mess that the University of Northern Colorado created for themselves when UNC moved up to FCS. CSU-P has no desire to duplicate that. CSU-P is spending much more wisely adding men's and women's lacrosse, men's indoor and outdoor track and field, women's swimming and diving, and men's cross country.
(This post was last modified: 05-04-2015 09:49 AM by lew240z.)
05-04-2015 09:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,671
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 298
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #27
RE: AAC MWC Response to Title Game Deregulation
(05-03-2015 09:38 PM)Dasville Wrote:  The AAC should add the 6 remaining Big 12 teams (after deregulation is voted down) and then add Army and BYU. Go to 20 with 2 divisions and play an 8 game schedule. Because Army and Navy refuse to reschedule their game, they are not eligible for the Conference Championship game. Consider Army and Navy an OOC game within the Conference. Look to the former BE as a model for basketball.
The AAC and MWC should never work together.
That is a good Conference and if you add rivalry game. I bet nobody is too disappointed.

Good point. If deregulation doesn't pass, then either:

1) the best of the Big 12 will eventually flock to the B1G, SEC, and ACC - and perhaps even the PAC 12. Then, the AAC could pick up the Big 12 pieces - or the Big 12 leftovers pick up some AAC pieces.

OR

2) the Big 12 will eventually look to the AAC for an addition or two to get a conference championship game.

If deregulation does pass, then there is no need to have 2 or 3 separate division champs. Instead, you have the best two teams from the conference play for the championship - this better ensures that the conference champion is the highest ranked team from the conference - which helps to land the G5 autobid to the NY6 bowls.

With whatever happens, I do think the AAC expansion WILL make sense. But there is no rush. First step is to see whether deregulation actually passes. Then, the AAC should expand to either back fill for lost members or to solidify itself as the superior G5 conference.

The short list for expansion candidates should be:

BYU
Army
Boise St.
San Diego St.
Air Force

Additional candidates for broader expansion should be:
Fresno St.
Colorado St.
UNLV
New Mexico
Northern Illinois
And may be - Nevada and Utah St.

The ideal True American Conference has been discussed in other threads, but it's the 21-team league that has Red(East), White(Central), Blue(West), and Stars&Stripes(Military) divisions and requires the additional of Army, Air Force, BYU, Boise St., SDSU, and two to four out of Fresno, Northern Illinois, CSU, UNLV, New Mexico.
(This post was last modified: 05-04-2015 12:44 PM by YNot.)
05-04-2015 12:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sactowndog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,100
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 114
I Root For: Fresno State Texas A&M
Location:
Post: #28
RE: AAC MWC Response to Title Game Deregulation
(05-04-2015 12:18 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(05-03-2015 09:38 PM)Dasville Wrote:  The AAC should add the 6 remaining Big 12 teams (after deregulation is voted down) and then add Army and BYU. Go to 20 with 2 divisions and play an 8 game schedule. Because Army and Navy refuse to reschedule their game, they are not eligible for the Conference Championship game. Consider Army and Navy an OOC game within the Conference. Look to the former BE as a model for basketball.
The AAC and MWC should never work together.
That is a good Conference and if you add rivalry game. I bet nobody is too disappointed.

Good point. If deregulation doesn't pass, then either:

1) the best of the Big 12 will eventually flock to the B1G, SEC, and ACC - and perhaps even the PAC 12. Then, the AAC could pick up the Big 12 pieces - or the Big 12 leftovers pick up some AAC pieces.

OR

2) the Big 12 will eventually look to the AAC for an addition or two to get a conference championship game.

If deregulation does pass, then there is no need to have 2 or 3 separate division champs. Instead, you have the best two teams from the conference play for the championship - this better ensures that the conference champion is the highest ranked team from the conference - which helps to land the G5 autobid to the NY6 bowls.


I disagree about not needing divisions. Whether you are talking the Big 12 competing for the playoff or the AAC/MWC trying to control the access bowl, the surest way to accomplish this feat is have 2 undefeated teams play in the championship game. At worst you want a 12-0 team playing a 11-1 team.

The higher the chance your two top teams meet the less chance you have of them both being strongly positioned. That reason is why I like 8-8-8 because you have almost no chance of it happening. In the Big 12 model, such an outcome is virtually guarenteed.
05-04-2015 06:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,671
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 298
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #29
RE: AAC MWC Response to Title Game Deregulation
(05-04-2015 06:32 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  I disagree about not needing divisions. Whether you are talking the Big 12 competing for the playoff or the AAC/MWC trying to control the access bowl, the surest way to accomplish this feat is have 2 undefeated teams play in the championship game. At worst you want a 12-0 team playing a 11-1 team.

The higher the chance your two top teams meet the less chance you have of them both being strongly positioned. That reason is why I like 8-8-8 because you have almost no chance of it happening. In the Big 12 model, such an outcome is virtually guarenteed.

With divisions, the more likely scenario is that you have your second strongest team that finishes second place in a division is left out while your strongest team plays a relative under-achiever. There are tons of examples of this over the course of college football history. Just last year, the MWC and MAC suffered from this very issue. Boise St. (7-1, 10-2) played Fresno State (5-3, 6-6) instead of CSU (6-2, 10-2) and Utah St. (6-2, 9-3) and even Air Force (5-3, 9-3). Had Fresno St. pulled off the upset, there is no way that Fresno lands in the NY6. However, if CSU or Utah St. upset Boise St., it could have been enough to propel them into the NY6.

See the similar situation in the MAC where the best team actually played the fourth or fifth best team in the conference in the CCG because of divisional alignment - although the stakes weren't quite as high.
(This post was last modified: 05-04-2015 07:41 PM by YNot.)
05-04-2015 07:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #30
RE: AAC MWC Response to Title Game Deregulation
(05-04-2015 12:18 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(05-03-2015 09:38 PM)Dasville Wrote:  The AAC should add the 6 remaining Big 12 teams (after deregulation is voted down) and then add Army and BYU. Go to 20 with 2 divisions and play an 8 game schedule. Because Army and Navy refuse to reschedule their game, they are not eligible for the Conference Championship game. Consider Army and Navy an OOC game within the Conference. Look to the former BE as a model for basketball.
The AAC and MWC should never work together.
That is a good Conference and if you add rivalry game. I bet nobody is too disappointed.

Good point. If deregulation doesn't pass, then either:

1) the best of the Big 12 will eventually flock to the B1G, SEC, and ACC - and perhaps even the PAC 12. Then, the AAC could pick up the Big 12 pieces - or the Big 12 leftovers pick up some AAC pieces.

OR

2) the Big 12 will eventually look to the AAC for an addition or two to get a conference championship game.

OR

3) the Big 12 rolls on merrily with its current 10 team roster. 07-coffee3
05-05-2015 07:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sactowndog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,100
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 114
I Root For: Fresno State Texas A&M
Location:
Post: #31
RE: AAC MWC Response to Title Game Deregulation
(05-04-2015 07:41 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(05-04-2015 06:32 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  I disagree about not needing divisions. Whether you are talking the Big 12 competing for the playoff or the AAC/MWC trying to control the access bowl, the surest way to accomplish this feat is have 2 undefeated teams play in the championship game. At worst you want a 12-0 team playing a 11-1 team.

The higher the chance your two top teams meet the less chance you have of them both being strongly positioned. That reason is why I like 8-8-8 because you have almost no chance of it happening. In the Big 12 model, such an outcome is virtually guarenteed.

With divisions, the more likely scenario is that you have your second strongest team that finishes second place in a division is left out while your strongest team plays a relative under-achiever. There are tons of examples of this over the course of college football history. Just last year, the MWC and MAC suffered from this very issue. Boise St. (7-1, 10-2) played Fresno State (5-3, 6-6) instead of CSU (6-2, 10-2) and Utah St. (6-2, 9-3) and even Air Force (5-3, 9-3). Had Fresno St. pulled off the upset, there is no way that Fresno lands in the NY6. However, if CSU or Utah St. upset Boise St., it could have been enough to propel them into the NY6.

See the similar situation in the MAC where the best team actually played the fourth or fifth best team in the conference in the CCG because of divisional alignment - although the stakes weren't quite as high.

True if you have two divisions. Much less likely if you have 3 and the teams don't play each other. Let's use the MWC as an example. Had we been a 24 team triple 8 team you would have Boise in the west at probably 11-1 as they beat all the west teams and would likely not played AF or Colorado State. Colorado State would have been 11-1 or 10-2 in the central if they lost to Houston and Memphis would have been say 9-3 in the east with a loss to UCF. In this case, the two highest teams would have gone.

Assuming C State had not lost to Houston you would have two 11-1 teams playing in the Championship and a win by either would have put them in over Marshall. They key is don't have your division champs hand each other loses, do well OOC, and pick your best two of three. That is the problem with six is you have too much cross over. But perhaps 7 would work where you play 3 home and 3 away in league and 1 in each other for an 8 game schedule.

The problem is you don't have a good fit unless you drop an AAC team so I dumped Tulane.

Using Coogs plan you might have:
West: Boise, Fresno, SDSU, UNLV, Reno, Utah State, Hawaii
West hoops: BYU, Gonzaga (Hawaii football only)

Central: Colorado State, Air Force, Houston, SMU, Tulsa, New Mexico, Memphis
Central hoops: Whichita State, UAB (AF Football only)

East: UConn, Cincinatti, Temple, ECU, UCF, USF, Navy
East Hoops: VCU, Dayton. (Navy football only)

You could make it even more attractive by stating hoops credits get shared only within your division. That means Gonzaga is sharing theirs with 7 other schools. It would be a very attractive hoops league in addition to owning the access game.
(This post was last modified: 05-05-2015 08:56 AM by Sactowndog.)
05-05-2015 08:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,737
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #32
RE: AAC MWC Response to Title Game Deregulation
(05-05-2015 08:45 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  
(05-04-2015 07:41 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(05-04-2015 06:32 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  I disagree about not needing divisions. Whether you are talking the Big 12 competing for the playoff or the AAC/MWC trying to control the access bowl, the surest way to accomplish this feat is have 2 undefeated teams play in the championship game. At worst you want a 12-0 team playing a 11-1 team.

The higher the chance your two top teams meet the less chance you have of them both being strongly positioned. That reason is why I like 8-8-8 because you have almost no chance of it happening. In the Big 12 model, such an outcome is virtually guarenteed.

With divisions, the more likely scenario is that you have your second strongest team that finishes second place in a division is left out while your strongest team plays a relative under-achiever. There are tons of examples of this over the course of college football history. Just last year, the MWC and MAC suffered from this very issue. Boise St. (7-1, 10-2) played Fresno State (5-3, 6-6) instead of CSU (6-2, 10-2) and Utah St. (6-2, 9-3) and even Air Force (5-3, 9-3). Had Fresno St. pulled off the upset, there is no way that Fresno lands in the NY6. However, if CSU or Utah St. upset Boise St., it could have been enough to propel them into the NY6.

See the similar situation in the MAC where the best team actually played the fourth or fifth best team in the conference in the CCG because of divisional alignment - although the stakes weren't quite as high.

True if you have two divisions. Much less likely if you have 3 and the teams don't play each other. Let's use the MWC as an example. Had we been a 24 team triple 8 team you would have Boise in the west at probably 11-1 as they beat all the west teams and would likely not played AF or Colorado State. Colorado State would have been 11-1 or 10-2 in the central if they lost to Houston and Memphis would have been say 9-3 in the east with a loss to UCF. In this case, the two highest teams would have gone.

Assuming C State had not lost to Houston you would have two 11-1 teams playing in the Championship and a win by either would have put them in over Marshall. They key is don't have your division champs hand each other loses, do well OOC, and pick your best two of three. That is the problem with six is you have too much cross over. But perhaps 7 would work where you play 3 home and 3 away in league and 1 in each other for an 8 game schedule.

The problem is you don't have a good fit unless you drop an AAC team so I dumped Tulane.

Using Coogs plan you might have:
West: Boise, Fresno, SDSU, UNLV, Reno, Utah State, Hawaii
West hoops: BYU, Gonzaga (Hawaii football only)

Central: Colorado State, Air Force, Houston, SMU, Tulsa, New Mexico, Memphis
Central hoops: Whichita State, UAB (AF Football only)

East: UConn, Cincinatti, Temple, ECU, UCF, USF, Navy
East Hoops: VCU, Dayton. (Navy football only)

You could make it even more attractive by stating hoops credits get shared only within your division. That means Gonzaga is sharing theirs with 7 other schools. It would be a very attractive hoops league in addition to owning the access game.

Seems like a lot of hoops to jump through just to get Hawaii. Tulane is probably a better selection than Hawaii these days. I wouldnt be against it if this was the only way to create a nationwide G5 conference, but I tend to think adding too many dilutes the money upside or the teams involved. That's why the more streamlined 6-6-6+3 plan might be a bit more financially lucrative. I do see you have a point as you may need a few more non-football sxhools,to balance the football only schools.
(This post was last modified: 05-05-2015 09:16 AM by Attackcoog.)
05-05-2015 09:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Sactowndog Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,100
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 114
I Root For: Fresno State Texas A&M
Location:
Post: #33
RE: AAC MWC Response to Title Game Deregulation
(05-05-2015 09:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(05-05-2015 08:45 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  
(05-04-2015 07:41 PM)YNot Wrote:  
(05-04-2015 06:32 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  I disagree about not needing divisions. Whether you are talking the Big 12 competing for the playoff or the AAC/MWC trying to control the access bowl, the surest way to accomplish this feat is have 2 undefeated teams play in the championship game. At worst you want a 12-0 team playing a 11-1 team.

The higher the chance your two top teams meet the less chance you have of them both being strongly positioned. That reason is why I like 8-8-8 because you have almost no chance of it happening. In the Big 12 model, such an outcome is virtually guarenteed.

With divisions, the more likely scenario is that you have your second strongest team that finishes second place in a division is left out while your strongest team plays a relative under-achiever. There are tons of examples of this over the course of college football history. Just last year, the MWC and MAC suffered from this very issue. Boise St. (7-1, 10-2) played Fresno State (5-3, 6-6) instead of CSU (6-2, 10-2) and Utah St. (6-2, 9-3) and even Air Force (5-3, 9-3). Had Fresno St. pulled off the upset, there is no way that Fresno lands in the NY6. However, if CSU or Utah St. upset Boise St., it could have been enough to propel them into the NY6.

See the similar situation in the MAC where the best team actually played the fourth or fifth best team in the conference in the CCG because of divisional alignment - although the stakes weren't quite as high.

True if you have two divisions. Much less likely if you have 3 and the teams don't play each other. Let's use the MWC as an example. Had we been a 24 team triple 8 team you would have Boise in the west at probably 11-1 as they beat all the west teams and would likely not played AF or Colorado State. Colorado State would have been 11-1 or 10-2 in the central if they lost to Houston and Memphis would have been say 9-3 in the east with a loss to UCF. In this case, the two highest teams would have gone.

Assuming C State had not lost to Houston you would have two 11-1 teams playing in the Championship and a win by either would have put them in over Marshall. They key is don't have your division champs hand each other loses, do well OOC, and pick your best two of three. That is the problem with six is you have too much cross over. But perhaps 7 would work where you play 3 home and 3 away in league and 1 in each other for an 8 game schedule.

The problem is you don't have a good fit unless you drop an AAC team so I dumped Tulane.

Using Coogs plan you might have:
West: Boise, Fresno, SDSU, UNLV, Reno, Utah State, Hawaii
West hoops: BYU, Gonzaga (Hawaii football only)

Central: Colorado State, Air Force, Houston, SMU, Tulsa, New Mexico, Memphis
Central hoops: Whichita State, UAB (AF Football only)

East: UConn, Cincinatti, Temple, ECU, UCF, USF, Navy
East Hoops: VCU, Dayton. (Navy football only)

You could make it even more attractive by stating hoops credits get shared only within your division. That means Gonzaga is sharing theirs with 7 other schools. It would be a very attractive hoops league in addition to owning the access game.

Seems like a lot of hoops to jump through just to get Hawaii. Tulane is probably a better selection than Hawaii these days. I wouldnt be against it if this was the only way to create a nationwide G5 conference, but I tend to think adding too many dilutes the money upside or the teams involved. That's why the more streamlined 6-6-6+3 plan might be a bit more financially lucrative. I do see you have a point as you may need a few more non-football sxhools,to balance the football only schools.

The problem with the six plan is too much inter divisional play and you give Boise an out. This is a medium ground with no out and divisions that make sense geographically. It's not attractive if the west coast teams have to fly all over Gods green earth. The AAC has to give somewhere. That's why their plan collapsed last time because the AAC had no regard to what they were imposing on the western schools.

Also not trying to add Hawaii but balance travel. If BYU wanted in for all sports I would drop Hawaii and add BYU football right away.
(This post was last modified: 05-05-2015 09:40 AM by Sactowndog.)
05-05-2015 09:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.