What's the criteria for "best of the rest"? Academics? Facilities? Fan support? TV markets? Recent success in football or basketball or both? Recruiting access? Commitment to win at the highest level? Endowments?

No G5 school meets all those criterias. NONE. The same can be said of some P5 schools but they're already part of the cartel so they have nothing to prove. The only recent move up that kinda fill the whole criteria is Utah. Louisville as well minus the academics. It's very misguided when people throw names because they had a good football season in forever while ignoring other facts. Using that argument, in a "best of the rest"scenario, there will be bottom feeders while there will be winners in a conference that is not considered "best of the rest". For every Boise State that is not included, there'll be multiple Tulanes that will be included. That's like saying there should be a "best of the best" league from the best 2 schools from each P5 conference.

(12-14-2015 10:26 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  What's the criteria for "best of the rest"? Academics? Facilities? Fan support? TV markets? Recent success in football or basketball or both? Recruiting access? Commitment to win at the highest level? Endowments?

No G5 school meets all those criterias. NONE. The same can be said of some P5 schools but they're already part of the cartel so they have nothing to prove. The only recent move up that kinda fill the whole criteria is Utah. Louisville as well minus the academics. It's very misguided when people throw names because they had a good football season in forever while ignoring other facts. Using that argument, in a "best of the rest"scenario, there will be bottom feeders while there will be winners in a conference that is not considered "best of the rest". For every Boise State that is not included, there'll be multiple Tulanes that will be included. That's like saying there should be a "best of the best" league from the best 2 schools from each P5 conference.

You seem to be misunderstanding the gist of the thread. I'm not saying there's a definitive 12 easy picks that mark all checkboxes out there, i'm saying what would those teams be if you had to choose the best fits for an AAC 2.0. It's up to you to decide what merits inclusion or not. I don't have the answers.

(12-14-2015 06:05 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  These scenarios made sense to imagine back in the day before the MAC signed a $125 million dollar TV deal with ESPN. That essentially ensures the long term integrity of the MAC. There is also a continuum of institutional characteristics that aren't shared by CUSA or SBC.

The question is more could you put a "Best of the Rest" CUSA/SBC conference that would be more credible as an FBS conference.

SBC: Arkansas St, Louisiana, Georgia Southern, App State
CUSA: Marshall, ODU, WKU, MTSU, Southern Miss, La Tech, UNT, UTSA

I: Marshall, ODU, WKU, MTSU, Georgia Southern, App State
II: So. Miss, La Tech, Louisiana, Arkansas St, UNT, UTSA

-Dropping FAU/FIU because they are so far from the other east schools.

-The schools are football oriented over Charlotte, UAB types.

-The leftover CUSA/SBC schools would be helpless.

There are good football schools in the both conferences that at the moment are weighed down by too many also rans.

Drop ODU and North Texas and replace with South Alabama and Troy.

If we are using the AAC format then none of those schools would make the cut. Most of them don't have the markets or the academics and with the exception of Boise St. None of the other schools have had real football success. Let's face it, the AAC took the absolute best 12 schools for their league and left the scraps for everybody else.

(12-14-2015 10:18 PM)goofus Wrote:  UTSA - Market
NIU - football "power"
Georgia St - market
UMass - percieved as Basketball power
Buffalo - academics
Rice -academics

I don't understand your asterisks for NIU as a football power... at the G5 level, they certainly are. They basically were suffering injuries at key positions each week (including multiple QBs) and still made their conference championship game with a true 5th string walk on QB while beating a ranked team and taking tOSU to the wire. And they've been doing it for almost a decade, what else would you call them?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

(12-14-2015 11:08 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(12-14-2015 10:26 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  What's the criteria for "best of the rest"? Academics? Facilities? Fan support? TV markets? Recent success in football or basketball or both? Recruiting access? Commitment to win at the highest level? Endowments?

No G5 school meets all those criterias. NONE. The same can be said of some P5 schools but they're already part of the cartel so they have nothing to prove. The only recent move up that kinda fill the whole criteria is Utah. Louisville as well minus the academics. It's very misguided when people throw names because they had a good football season in forever while ignoring other facts. Using that argument, in a "best of the rest"scenario, there will be bottom feeders while there will be winners in a conference that is not considered "best of the rest". For every Boise State that is not included, there'll be multiple Tulanes that will be included. That's like saying there should be a "best of the best" league from the best 2 schools from each P5 conference.

You seem to be misunderstanding the gist of the thread. I'm not saying there's a definitive 12 easy picks that mark all checkboxes out there, i'm saying what would those teams be if you had to choose the best fits for an AAC 2.0. It's up to you to decide what merits inclusion or not. I don't have the answers.

Once again, what's the criteria for such "best of the rest" scenario? You have to look at long term scenarios not what's hot for one season. I see Old Dominion with a brighter future than Tulane. Even using the AAC as a model (laughable at best), it doesn't make sense. For one conference to be successful, most schools want to make it a permanent home for decades to come. The vast majority of AAC schools don't want to be there which causes instability and friction. This is the reason the MAC has been stable and pretty much untouched by realignment. They want to be there because they know they have no other options and moving to another G5 conference is a lateral move. So for a "best of the rest" conference to be successful, all of its members need to realize they'll be there for the long haul which no G5 school outside the MAC will sign up for that at will.

(12-14-2015 11:33 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(12-14-2015 11:08 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(12-14-2015 10:26 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  What's the criteria for "best of the rest"? Academics? Facilities? Fan support? TV markets? Recent success in football or basketball or both? Recruiting access? Commitment to win at the highest level? Endowments?

No G5 school meets all those criterias. NONE. The same can be said of some P5 schools but they're already part of the cartel so they have nothing to prove. The only recent move up that kinda fill the whole criteria is Utah. Louisville as well minus the academics. It's very misguided when people throw names because they had a good football season in forever while ignoring other facts. Using that argument, in a "best of the rest"scenario, there will be bottom feeders while there will be winners in a conference that is not considered "best of the rest". For every Boise State that is not included, there'll be multiple Tulanes that will be included. That's like saying there should be a "best of the best" league from the best 2 schools from each P5 conference.

You seem to be misunderstanding the gist of the thread. I'm not saying there's a definitive 12 easy picks that mark all checkboxes out there, i'm saying what would those teams be if you had to choose the best fits for an AAC 2.0. It's up to you to decide what merits inclusion or not. I don't have the answers.

Once again, what's the criteria for such "best of the rest" scenario? You have to look at long term scenarios not what's hot for one season. I see Old Dominion with a brighter future than Tulane. Even using the AAC as a model (laughable at best), it doesn't make sense. For one conference to be successful, most schools want to make it a permanent home for decades to come. The vast majority of AAC schools don't want to be there which causes instability and friction. This is the reason the MAC has been stable and pretty much untouched by realignment. They want to be there because they know they have no other options and moving to another G5 conference is a lateral move. So for a "best of the rest" conference to be successful, all of its members need to realize they'll be there for the long haul which no G5 school outside the MAC will sign up for that at will.

-I've listed several pieces of criterion that you could draw from in the OP.
-The only limiting factors is that these teams are to be selected from MAC, SBC, C-USA, or FCS.
-Are you implying that no one in C-USA wants to better their situation? The AAC was developed with the idea well in mind that the successful programs would likely be poached for the P5. That didn't stop them from making the conference.
-There's no right or wrong answer, and i'm not sure why you're getting so worked up over a thought exercise.

The MAC is unbreakable or I'd say Ohio. From CUSA : Marshall, Southern Miss, Louisiana Tech, maybe Old Dominion. From Sun Belt : Arkansas State, Texas State, Georgia Southern, Georgia State, and maybe Appalachian State or Louisiana (if they drop the -Lafayette from their name.)
Those schools are serious about playing good football (Texas State and Georgia State because those have huge brand potential. )

So you have a southern based conference looking something like

Marshall
Old Dominion
Appalachian State
Georgia Southern
Georgia State
Southern Miss
Louisiana Tech
Louisiana
Arkansas State
Texas State

Add maybe two schools to get to 12 that are preferably non directionals.
Ohio would be great to have but the MAC is stuck together like glue. Call up Delaware (Flag ship) , Missouri State (only 1 fbs in that state), or the like if need be.
Call the it the South (#of teams) Conference.

(12-14-2015 11:43 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(12-14-2015 11:33 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(12-14-2015 11:08 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(12-14-2015 10:26 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  What's the criteria for "best of the rest"? Academics? Facilities? Fan support? TV markets? Recent success in football or basketball or both? Recruiting access? Commitment to win at the highest level? Endowments?

No G5 school meets all those criterias. NONE. The same can be said of some P5 schools but they're already part of the cartel so they have nothing to prove. The only recent move up that kinda fill the whole criteria is Utah. Louisville as well minus the academics. It's very misguided when people throw names because they had a good football season in forever while ignoring other facts. Using that argument, in a "best of the rest"scenario, there will be bottom feeders while there will be winners in a conference that is not considered "best of the rest". For every Boise State that is not included, there'll be multiple Tulanes that will be included. That's like saying there should be a "best of the best" league from the best 2 schools from each P5 conference.

You seem to be misunderstanding the gist of the thread. I'm not saying there's a definitive 12 easy picks that mark all checkboxes out there, i'm saying what would those teams be if you had to choose the best fits for an AAC 2.0. It's up to you to decide what merits inclusion or not. I don't have the answers.

Once again, what's the criteria for such "best of the rest" scenario? You have to look at long term scenarios not what's hot for one season. I see Old Dominion with a brighter future than Tulane. Even using the AAC as a model (laughable at best), it doesn't make sense. For one conference to be successful, most schools want to make it a permanent home for decades to come. The vast majority of AAC schools don't want to be there which causes instability and friction. This is the reason the MAC has been stable and pretty much untouched by realignment. They want to be there because they know they have no other options and moving to another G5 conference is a lateral move. So for a "best of the rest" conference to be successful, all of its members need to realize they'll be there for the long haul which no G5 school outside the MAC will sign up for that at will.

-I've listed several pieces of criterion that you could draw from in the OP.
-The only limiting factors is that these teams are to be selected from MAC, SBC, C-USA, or FCS.
-Are you implying that no one in C-USA wants to better their situation? The AAC was developed with the idea well in mind that the successful programs would likely be poached for the P5. That didn't stop them from making the conference.
-There's no right or wrong answer, and i'm not sure why you're getting so worked up over a thought exercise.

In UTEP's case the only G5 conference that's a natural fit is the MWC Why? It's the only G5 conference that has multiple schools where they're the only game in town (like UTEP) unlike the AAC where it has all of its schools (except UConn) in pro sports towns or very close to P5 schools and they're usually the 5th or 6th choice in entertainment. Same goes for C-USA, MAC and SBC. Every G5 school will jump to the opportunity to better themselves.......in a P5 conference that is. There's a reason MAC schools didn't follow Marshall and UCF to C-USA. The AAC is basically an incarnation of C-USA 1.0 and 2.0 and we all know it was the most vulnerable non power conference for raids. All it takes is one one P5 league to takes one of your schools and you're back to square one.

I'm not getting worked out about this. It's just the condescending tone of this thread that kinda confuses me. That's it.

(12-14-2015 11:43 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  The AAC was developed with the idea well in mind that the successful programs would likely be poached for the P5. That didn't stop them from making the conference.

The AAC was not "developed" with "an idea" other than trying to serve the interests of its membership at each point in time that . It started with the Old Big East trying to expand to save its P5 status in the face of ACC raiding, then when raided further it had to reload to maintain its status as an FBS conference at all, then when one of the teams on the way balked at coming, and it was decided that the other on the West Coast was unworkable, they also had to be replaced.

It could do that because, with the schools on hand and the ones on the way, it was still seen as more prestigious than CUSA (or the Sunbelt or the MAC), it could raid CUSA 2.0 for replacements, in the same way that it had previously raided CUSA 1.0 ... but that was leveraging a "best of the Eastern Go5" status already in hand to maintain that status, that was not creating a "best of the Eastern Go5" from scratch.

A "best of the rest" shuffling members of CUSA and the Sunbelt would not be serving the interests of any of the members of either conference that is left out. So it would not be with the "same idea" as the AAC ... it would be a different idea, serve the interests of media networks, but not the interests of all of the current members of those conferences.

(12-14-2015 10:26 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  What's the criteria for "best of the rest"? Academics? Facilities? Fan support? TV markets? Recent success in football or basketball or both? Recruiting access? Commitment to win at the highest level? Endowments?

No G5 school meets all those criterias. NONE. The same can be said of some P5 schools but they're already part of the cartel so they have nothing to prove. The only recent move up that kinda fill the whole criteria is Utah. Louisville as well minus the academics. It's very misguided when people throw names because they had a good football season in forever while ignoring other facts. Using that argument, in a "best of the rest"scenario, there will be bottom feeders while there will be winners in a conference that is not considered "best of the rest". For every Boise State that is not included, there'll be multiple Tulanes that will be included. That's like saying there should be a "best of the best" league from the best 2 schools from each P5 conference.

I presume the general idea is MWC is roughly stable (only four schools in the footprint that aren't P5 and aren't currently members, and Idaho ain't getting in, NMSU would be a long shot, and UTEP not unless the money works, and BYU can't currently afford to align with the MWC with Utah in P12). AAC is content where they are right now (unless the Big XII is looking).

That leaves a best of CUSA, MAC, Sun Belt, UMass, maybe Army, or some subset.

Out of the 37 schools in the Central and Eastern time zones there really isn't a game changing combination if you are seeking a great TV deal. You grow to 39 if you add UTEP and NMSU to your starting pool, 38 if you delete not yet transitioned Coastal Carolina.

That leaves only two realistic and viable goals for a best of.
1. Trying to align a group of 9 to 12 to maximize the opportunity to compete against AAC and MWC for the Access slot.
2. Feeling dissatisfaction because you do not think all or enough of your current conference mates are serious about striving to produce a contender for the G5 upper echelon and desiring to realign with schools who share your vision.

If you want to undertake such a task you have to deal in realities.
First the closer you are to the center mass of the conference the rule I call "close but not too close" comes into play. By that, you don't want schools competing with a conference mate for attention from the same TV stations and same newspaper. If you can can avoid a lot of head-to-head recruiting that is bonus as is the potential to bus.

Out of that pool of 39, you had 16 get bowl eligible this year.
The median head football coach salary in the pool is around $550,000.
Too lazy to look up the median attendance.

But if you were to cut the pool from 39 to 20 by ranking the pool 1-39 in head coach salary, bowl appearances last 5-10 years from 1-39, and attendance over 3 or 5 or 10 years from 1-39 and then cull that down to 12 by using more arbitary "do they fit" you have created a strong third league but strong enough for the MAC schools included to walk away from their history and compact league? Strong enough to subject the Sun Belt and CUSA schools to yet more affiliation turmoil?

That's a challenging set of questions.

My sense is the answer is no absent some other force being at play (realignment above or CUSA's TV deal laying an egg rather going up or sideways or a change in CFP distribution that greater rewards performance).

Ohio
Marshall
James Madison
Old Dominion
Appalachian State
Charlotte
Coastal Carolina
Georgia State
Georgia Southern
Troy
FIU
FAU

(12-15-2015 01:17 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  ... But if you were to cut the pool from 39 to 20 by ranking the pool 1-39 in head coach salary, bowl appearances last 5-10 years from 1-39, and attendance over 3 or 5 or 10 years from 1-39 and then cull that down to 12 by using more arbitary "do they fit" you have created a strong third league but strong enough for the MAC schools included to walk away from their history and compact league?

Maybe Buffalo and maybe NIU. So cull 39 down by another 10, to 29, and do a top 16 (roughly half, rounded up to an even number), then arbitrarily trim that to 12.

But wouldn't seven of them have to be in the same conference right now? Because a newly formed conference needs continuity to get autobids to NCAA tournaments ... six for most sports, 7 for BBall.

So really you are talking about taking the top 7 CUSA teams (if they have not played together the requisite number of years yet, then time the start of the conference until they have), and adding a combination of 5 MAC/SBC schools .... off the top of my head, I'd guess NIU, AR St, ULouisiana, Appy State, GA So.

But anyway, you have two rankings: rank CUSA on those criteria, rank SBC+NIU+Buffalo+UMass+Army+NMSU on those criteria, decide where to do the cut and whether there are any schools that are "too close" which get crowded out by a superior school above them.

Quote:Strong enough to subject the Sun Belt and CUSA schools to yet more affiliation turmoil?

Obviously not ... there is no end-game here that is worth the additional re-alignment turmoil.

And after this point, what you have is the rest of CUSA and the Sunbelt get together, minus whatever reloading the MAC might do, and have another mish-mash of overlapping conferences between the Southern East Coast and Texas, with no coherent regional identity.

(12-15-2015 07:02 AM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  Ohio
Marshall
James Madison
Old Dominion
Appalachian State
Charlotte
Coastal Carolina
Georgia State
Georgia Southern
Troy
FIU
FAU

At least 5 of those schools would fall under "the rest" category.

This is quite a challenge due the number and geographic disparity between the 3 conferences. I may have to push this conference to 16 or 18 teams but here is my jab and some of it is base on football power, basketball power and fan support on either one of those sports, potential markets and academics. (Also, putting travel pairs for the Olympic side of things)
16 teams:
South: NMSU, UTEP, UTSA, Texas St., Rice, ULL, Ga. St, Ga. So.
North: NIU, Ball St, Ohio, Marshall, Buffalo, UMass, ODU, JMU

To push to 18: Add S. Miss in the South and App St in the North.

(12-15-2015 07:44 AM)polkhigh Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 07:02 AM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  Ohio
Marshall
James Madison
Old Dominion
Appalachian State
Charlotte
Coastal Carolina
Georgia State
Georgia Southern
Troy
FIU
FAU

At least 5 of those schools would fall under "the rest" category.

Just a good Southern Atlantic Conference

(12-15-2015 09:21 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  South: NMSU, UTEP, UTSA, Texas St., Rice, ULL, Ga. St, Ga. So.
North: NIU, Ball St, Ohio, Marshall, Buffalo, UMass, ODU, JMU

To push to 18: Add S. Miss in the South and App St in the North.

I don't see AppSt or GaSo wanting to be in different conferences.

(12-15-2015 11:39 AM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 09:21 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  South: NMSU, UTEP, UTSA, Texas St., Rice, ULL, Ga. St, Ga. So.
North: NIU, Ball St, Ohio, Marshall, Buffalo, UMass, ODU, JMU

To push to 18: Add S. Miss in the South and App St in the North.

I don't see AppSt or GaSo wanting to be in different conferences.

Same conference different divisions. Don't care if they don't want to separated as I left App St out in the first place. It is a take it or leave it option with me.

(12-14-2015 10:18 PM)goofus Wrote:  UTSA - Market
NIU - football "power"
Georgia St - market
UMass - percieved as Basketball power
Buffalo - academics
Rice -academics

under what criteria is UMass considered a basketball power? if you take out the 5 year run from '92-'96 under Calipari that ended with their NCAA wins being vacated because their coach was John Calipari, what do you have? You have a program that is 0-4 in the NCAA tournament with just 1 appearance since 1998, you have a program that has only won 1 regular season conference championship since 1976 and you have a program that has never won a conference tournament championship.

How does that make UMass a perceived basketball power, but NIU is just a football "power"? Does a team get to ride 5 good years for eternity?

So, essentially, what you are talking about is rearranging the teams in C-USA and the Sunbelt. If you were to divide them by football attendance, you would have one conference of nine schools (if you include UAB), seven of which have been together to meet the requirement for a basketball autobid.

CUSA becomes:

UTSA
UTEP
Marshall
Southern Miss
UL-Lafayette
Arkansas State
Louisiana Tech
Rice
UAB


The Sunbelt becomes:

James Madison
Old Dominion
Charlotte
Appalachian St
Middle Tennessee
Western Kentucky
Georgia Southern
Georgia State
Troy
South Alabama
FIU
FAU

Now, looking for a home (and possibly an FCS callup or two) are:

UL-Monroe
North Texas
Texas State
New Mexico State
Idaho
UMass

As football independents, along with Army, they could probably survive with a mutual scheduling alliance to fill the difficult late season slots.