If the P5 pass title game deregulation then the Mountain West and AAC should merge and form 3 divisions of 8. The 2 top rated division winners would meet in the Championship Game for a spot in the Access Bowl. Such an arrangement would virtually guarentee the league a defacto spot in all years and if both teams are rated highly enough might sneak them into the National Championship Playoff. Teams would play a 9 game schedule of all teams in division and 1 team from the other two eight.

The three eight would be geographically compact which also helps travel and build rivalries. In basketball, they would play home and home within division and 1 away and one home in the other eight. Top 4 within each division plus the 4 highest RPI from the remaining 12 go to a 16 team conference tournament rotating between Atlantic City, New Orleans and Vegas.

The three eight would be:
West: Boise State, Fresno State, San Diego State, San Jose Sate, UNLV, Nevada, Utah State, Hawaii

Mountain Plains: Colorado State, Wyoming, Air Force, New Mexico, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Memphis/Tulane

East: UCF, UConn, Cincinatti, USF, Temple, ECU, Navy, Memphis/Tulane

Last year would have seen: Boise State, Colorado State and UCF as division champs. The two highest rated champs would have played for the access spot. This group of 24 would virtually own the access spot with two of the three almost always in position to win.

No. That is even worse.
Just leave the MW & AAC alone. Each is just fine as is.

Oh, hell no.

(05-03-2015 10:46 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  No. That is even worse.
Just leave the MW & AAC alone. Each is just fine as is.

Worse then what? If guaranteeing access to the Championship Game is your goal it provides the most secure path. It also maintains the rivalries that matter and makes the division race mean something. In this case a down division doesn't hurt you.

so right now each MW team has
a 1 in 6 chance of winning the division
a 1 in 2 chance of the division winning their conference, or each team has 1 in 12 chance.
about a 1 in 3 chance of its conference champ getting an access bowl.
so each team has a 1 in 36 chance at an access bowl

with your plan, each MW-AAC team
has a
1 in 8 chance of winning its division
1 in 3 chance of its division winning tghe conference, so each team has a 1 in 24 chance of winning its conference.
about a 3 in 4 chance of its conference champ getting an access bowl.
so each team has a 1 in 32 chance at making an access bowl.

so not much difference there.

the only advantage I could think of, it could increase the chances of the MW-AAC champ making the 4 team playoffs.

Proclaiming ucf that division champ is nice but I'm guessing UC and Memphis fans would have something to say about that.

(05-03-2015 11:07 AM)goofus Wrote:  so right now each MW team has
a 1 in 6 chance of winning the division
a 1 in 2 chance of the division winning their conference, or each team has 1 in 12 chance.
about a 1 in 3 chance of its conference champ getting an access bowl.
so each team has a 1 in 36 chance at an access bowl

with your plan, each MW-AAC team
has a
1 in 8 chance of winning its division
1 in 3 chance of its division winning tghe conference, so each team has a 1 in 24 chance of winning its conference.
about a 3 in 4 chance of its conference champ getting an access bowl.
so each team has a 1 in 32 chance at making an access bowl.

so not much difference there.

the only advantage I could think of, it could increase the chances of the MW-AAC champ making the 4 team playoffs.

I'm not sure that is the right mathematical formula. The formula should be what is the chance of the championship game pairing the top two contenders for the access bowl and there by guaranteeing the conference the spot.

Your chances increase if you reduce the risk of a 7-5 or 6-6 division champ playing in the game. It also increases if your best teams don't hand each other losses until the champ game.

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.

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).

(05-03-2015 11:07 AM)goofus Wrote:  the only advantage I could think of, it could increase the chances of the MW-AAC champ making the 4 team playoffs.

It won't even do that.

For a G5 team to have a realistic shot at being selected for the 4-team playoff, they have to be undefeated and have at least one, maybe two P5 skins hanging on their wall.

A G5 team that is undefeated with at least one good P5 victory has just as good a chance in their current conference as they would in this proposed goulash. A G5 team with a non-con schedule like 2014 Marshall has no chance at the playoff, no matter how "well" you shuffle the G5 conferences.

The AAC is only 22 months old. Even us in the AAC don't know what we will become yet. For example, we're surprisingly the #3 baseball conference. How good will we be in FB and BB? No one knows.

I wouldn't rule out some kind of relationship (maybe even a merger) between the AAC and the MWC in the future. But the AAC won't even think about it until things settle down. If we're light years ahead of the MWC in five years, there will be no merger. If the two conferences are dead even and the situation is just right, maybe a merger will make sense. It's too early to tell.

(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.

That might work but the problem is you increase the chances of the top teams playing each other prior to the game. The ideal scenario is you match two undefeated teams in the championship game such as Boise and TCU. It is also provides unbalanced in which goes 2 versus 1.

In terms of the add in teams, Navy, AF and Hawaii may all be football only which allows you to substitute with VCU, Wichita State and BYU.

(05-03-2015 01:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-03-2015 11:07 AM)goofus Wrote:  the only advantage I could think of, it could increase the chances of the MW-AAC champ making the 4 team playoffs.

It won't even do that.

For a G5 team to have a realistic shot at being selected for the 4-team playoff, they have to be undefeated and have at least one, maybe two P5 skins hanging on their wall.

A G5 team that is undefeated with at least one good P5 victory has just as good a chance in their current conference as they would in this proposed goulash. A G5 team with a non-con schedule like 2014 Marshall has no chance at the playoff, no matter how "well" you shuffle the G5 conferences.

If this model were in place when both Boise and TCU were good, those two teams would have been in the Championship game, Boise from the west and TCU from the mountain and the winner would have had a chance at the Championship game.

(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).

Yes thanks. In terms of basketball the 11 team split on both could work. But I know how much the big east has enjoyed the play all home and home model. This tries to replicate that with your local rivals and build that rivalry up by playing home and home with the same teams every year.

The goal is to replicate the intimacy of the smaller conferences while also positioning yourselves to control the access bowl.

Huge Money loser to combine the two

(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.

(05-03-2015 03:10 PM)billings Wrote:  Huge Money loser to combine the two

Based on?

If you lock in the access game it's hardly a money loser. It would also help get teams in the NCAA by higher RPI games in the Tournament. It puts us in a stronger negotiating position with TV negotiating as one entity and it reduces travel costs with the intimate 8 teams which is your primary competition.

So explain again why it's s money loser.

(05-03-2015 03:10 PM)billings Wrote:  Huge Money loser to combine the two

It would be a huge money loser for Boise which is why I think the 6-6-6 plan won't work. Boise's choice has to be join or independent. It might be a money loser for Wyoming which sucks up way more than their share of bonus money. It might be a money loser for Fresno which has done okay in bonus dollars. For AF, Colorado State, SDSU, UNLV and New Mexico it would be a boost in revenue.

(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).

There is NO WAY that San Jose State would make the cut if a merger would happen...