The bad part about a CCG with 10 teams is that besides the virtual guarantee of a rematch, it could hurt the second place team that much more - what if the second place team went 6-2 in conference play and 0-4 OOC? A 6-7 record may not be good enough to secure a bowl some seasons, even with the ridiculously expanded stable of bowls.

(01-09-2016 10:14 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  The bad part about a CCG with 10 teams is that besides the virtual guarantee of a rematch, it could hurt the second place team that much more - what if the second place team went 6-2 in conference play and 0-4 OOC? A 6-7 record may not be good enough to secure a bowl some seasons, even with the ridiculously expanded stable of bowls.

Perfectly valid points. And perhaps why Benson is on record saying that even if allowed to host a CCG with 10 teams, they might not do it anyway.


But to then say "well, we should host a CCG, and therefore we should expand to 12!" is not an automatic yes, in my opinion.

The CFP payout would increase, up to 12. That is true. But all other money decreases (per school). I doubt the Sun Belt TV/streaming contract is going to expand much by adding EKU and Missouri St, for example. And I also don't think they'll get into more bowl games. And then NCAA basketball money becomes thinner per school.

Etc. Gotta weight the options.

(01-08-2016 11:59 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 10:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 06:34 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think deregulation will not happen. As I have seen through the realignment, the schools are more interested for themselves and not the strength of the conference. I think many of the G5 schools will vote with the Big 10 hopefully that the Big 12 will be forced to expand while AAC and MWC gets schools taken from them. Which does open spots up for C-USA, Big Sky, Sun Belt, MAC, CAA, OVC, MVFC, Southern, Southland and Big South schools to upgrade in conferences.

If the Sun Belt drops both New Mexico State and Idaho? I could see Lamar and Missouri State to be added to replace them for all sports.

The funny thing is, voting "yes" for deregulation likely is GOOD for G5 conference stability. Only a few G5 members (who would already have a good idea who they are) would benefit by voting "no" on deregulation. In other words, the majority of the members in these G5 conferences already would know they are likely NOT the target to "improve" their current conference situation. So, logically, the majority of each G5 would vote for conference stability---the alternative would mean voting for a measure that would weaken the conference that the majority of teams would still be left behind in.

So, I honestly think the majority of each G5 conference would be more likely to vote for deregulation than against it. I also think they would be more likely to vote against the Big-10 amendment for the same reason.

9 of the 12 MWC schools have been rumored as expansion candidates. San Jose State, Utah State and Wyoming are the ones that might vote with the Big 12.

All of the AAC except for Tulsa could swing in the Big 10 way. That is 20 out of 24 schools that could vote with the Big 10.

Old Dominion, Rice, Northern Illinois, Toledo, Ohio U., Southern Mississippi and UTSA are also rumor as expansion candidates to either P5 ot to a better G5 Conference. You can add UTEP for MWC. That is 8 more schools. Plus U. Mass. on the list, and BYU as well. That makes 30.

30 could vote the Big 10 way, 30 could vote the Big 12 way. So, it could be half and half on the G5 schools. Lets say the SEC, PAC 12 and Big 10 vote against both the Big 12 and ACC. 70 votes in favor with the Big 10, and 55 for the Big 12. Big 10 could get the majority of the votes.

I think you are right on the conclusion that the B10's proposal will have more support. It will have more support because requiring round robin divisions retains integrity of the championship game.

Overall, I don't think the voting is going to be as coalition based on this issue as it would be for conference expansion. The conference consensus on how to vote will probably be mostly up to what the commissioners think is the right way to vote.

(01-09-2016 10:29 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 10:14 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  The bad part about a CCG with 10 teams is that besides the virtual guarantee of a rematch, it could hurt the second place team that much more - what if the second place team went 6-2 in conference play and 0-4 OOC? A 6-7 record may not be good enough to secure a bowl some seasons, even with the ridiculously expanded stable of bowls.

Perfectly valid points. And perhaps why Benson is on record saying that even if allowed to host a CCG with 10 teams, they might not do it anyway.


But to then say "well, we should host a CCG, and therefore we should expand to 12!" is not an automatic yes, in my opinion.

The CFP payout would increase, up to 12. That is true. But all other money decreases (per school). I doubt the Sun Belt TV/streaming contract is going to expand much by adding EKU and Missouri St, for example. And I also don't think they'll get into more bowl games. And then NCAA basketball money becomes thinner per school.

Etc. Gotta weight the options.

I think the options for the SBC are to either go 10/12 with 10 football schools or 12/12 with 12 football schools. Going to 14 in olympic sports doesn't make sense for this conference.

(01-09-2016 10:39 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 10:29 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 10:14 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  The bad part about a CCG with 10 teams is that besides the virtual guarantee of a rematch, it could hurt the second place team that much more - what if the second place team went 6-2 in conference play and 0-4 OOC? A 6-7 record may not be good enough to secure a bowl some seasons, even with the ridiculously expanded stable of bowls.

Perfectly valid points. And perhaps why Benson is on record saying that even if allowed to host a CCG with 10 teams, they might not do it anyway.


But to then say "well, we should host a CCG, and therefore we should expand to 12!" is not an automatic yes, in my opinion.

The CFP payout would increase, up to 12. That is true. But all other money decreases (per school). I doubt the Sun Belt TV/streaming contract is going to expand much by adding EKU and Missouri St, for example. And I also don't think they'll get into more bowl games. And then NCAA basketball money becomes thinner per school.

Etc. Gotta weight the options.

I think the options for the SBC are to either go 10/12 with 10 football schools or 12/12 with 12 football schools. Going to 14 in olympic sports doesn't make sense for this conference.

That's fine, but as I said before, you don't just "show the door" to UALR and UTA. Especially not UALR, been in the conference since 1991.

Unless you can convince those two to leave of their own accord, the 12/12 option would seem to be off the table.

OR ... you can keep Idaho and NMSt as football affiliates.

Perhaps if Wichita St is serious about FBS the Belt can replace Idaho with them when the Vandals drop to FCS.

(01-09-2016 11:33 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  Perhaps if Wichita St is serious about FBS the Belt can replace Idaho with them when the Vandals drop to FCS.

As football only, you mean? They would never go from the MVC to the SB in basketball.

(01-09-2016 11:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 11:33 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  Perhaps if Wichita St is serious about FBS the Belt can replace Idaho with them when the Vandals drop to FCS.

As football only, you mean? They would never go from the MVC to the SB in basketball.

Right.

Fans here think either of two things which are incorrect.

1) Wichita State to the AAC regardless of sorry football.
2) Wichita State would consider a massive down grade to SBC basketball.

The half way option for Wichita State is CUSA where you can have sorry ass football but a pretty decent national TV deal for basketball.

If you are CUSA, you add Wichita the best basketball school from the MVC and you add NMSU the best basketball school from the WAC and suddenly its a 2 bid conference. It becomes an FBS version of the MVC practically.

(01-09-2016 12:25 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 11:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 11:33 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  Perhaps if Wichita St is serious about FBS the Belt can replace Idaho with them when the Vandals drop to FCS.

As football only, you mean? They would never go from the MVC to the SB in basketball.

Right.

Fans here think either of two things which are incorrect.

1) Wichita State to the AAC regardless of sorry football.
2) Wichita State would consider a massive down grade to SBC basketball.

The half way option for Wichita State is CUSA where you can have sorry ass football but a pretty decent national TV deal for basketball.

If you are CUSA, you add Wichita the best basketball school from the MVC and you add NMSU the best basketball school from the WAC and suddenly its a 2 bid conference. It becomes an FBS version of the MVC practically.

That's not all together a horrible idea, however I'm not sure it would be a 2-bid conference perennially. NMSU is not a guaranteed team in the tourney every year, but Old Dominion is pretty solid in basketball. So with those three, in most years, you would probably have 2 bids (especially if WSU loses in conference tourney), but it is not necessarily guaranteed.

Wichita State isn't moving until 2019 at the earliest. The Missouri Valley Conference has racked up a pile of credits, and there are still credits earned by Creighton that have not been paid:

2016-17: 12 shares from Creighton left behind ($3.30 million)
2017-18: 6 shares from Creighton left behind. ($1.65 million)
2018-19: 2 shares from Creighton left behind ($0.66 million)

What Wichita State should do is take their fellow 5 conference mates who play football to form a new all-sports FCS conference:

West - North Dakota, North Dakota State, South Dakota, South Dakota State, Northern Iowa, Wichita State
East - Missouri State, Western Illinois, Illinois State, Southern Illinois, Indiana State, Murray State

By taking more than 50% of the MVC with them, all of the tournament credits revert to the schools that earned them. It might actually be worth taking a school llke Oral Roberts instead of North Dakota because then the Summit League's credits would revert to the schools, and Youngstown State's football program could just simply follow the rest of the MVFC to the new league to stand in as ORU's football team.

The remaining four schools in the MVC (Bradley, Drake, Evansville, Loyola-Chicago) would have no residual tournament credits, and essentially be homeless. The Horizon League, Ohio Valley Conference, and Summit League would scoop up the remaining schools.

(01-09-2016 12:25 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 11:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 11:33 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  Perhaps if Wichita St is serious about FBS the Belt can replace Idaho with them when the Vandals drop to FCS.

As football only, you mean? They would never go from the MVC to the SB in basketball.

Right.

Fans here think either of two things which are incorrect.

1) Wichita State to the AAC regardless of sorry football.
2) Wichita State would consider a massive down grade to SBC basketball.

The half way option for Wichita State is CUSA where you can have sorry ass football but a pretty decent national TV deal for basketball.

If you are CUSA, you add Wichita the best basketball school from the MVC and you add NMSU the best basketball school from the WAC and suddenly its a 2 bid conference. It becomes an FBS version of the MVC practically.

Full membership in the AAC is Wichita's best theoretical option. It's most likely impossible, as the AAC would be reluctant to take a new program.

But if they could swing it, they'd be great as Tulsa's travel partner. And the basketball is better than the MVC.


Short of that, of course, they have to stay in the MVC for basketball. Nothing else would be worth it.

(01-09-2016 01:13 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Wichita State isn't moving until 2019 at the earliest. The Missouri Valley Conference has racked up a pile of credits, and there are still credits earned by Creighton that have not been paid:

2016-17: 12 shares from Creighton left behind ($3.30 million)
2017-18: 6 shares from Creighton left behind. ($1.65 million)
2018-19: 2 shares from Creighton left behind ($0.66 million)

What Wichita State should do is take their fellow 5 conference mates who play football to form a new all-sports FCS conference:

West - North Dakota, North Dakota State, South Dakota, South Dakota State, Northern Iowa, Wichita State
East - Missouri State, Western Illinois, Illinois State, Southern Illinois, Indiana State, Murray State

By taking more than 50% of the MVC with them, all of the tournament credits revert to the schools that earned them. It might actually be worth taking a school llke Oral Roberts instead of North Dakota because then the Summit League's credits would revert to the schools, and Youngstown State's football program could just simply follow the rest of the MVFC to the new league to stand in as ORU's football team.

The remaining four schools in the MVC (Bradley, Drake, Evansville, Loyola-Chicago) would have no residual tournament credits, and essentially be homeless. The Horizon League, Ohio Valley Conference, and Summit League would scoop up the remaining schools.

I don't see anyone going for that. The Dakota schools have a really good thing going in the Summit. They're kings there. The tournament is in Sioux Falls. It's generally Dakota schools winning the NCAA bids.

The MVC schools really like that conference. Particularly N Iowa, Drake, MO St and the IL/IN schools.

(01-09-2016 11:48 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 11:33 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  Perhaps if Wichita St is serious about FBS the Belt can replace Idaho with them when the Vandals drop to FCS.

As football only, you mean? They would never go from the MVC to the SB in basketball.

Of course Idaho is football only and the SBC could replace them with a football only Wichita St. They could keep their Olympics in the MVC and still play FBS.

(01-09-2016 09:52 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 09:57 PM)NoDak Wrote:  Fullerton doesn't want Idaho at the FCS level. Whomever is spouting such nonsense doesn't take his past statements into context.

Contrary to what is posted here, both Montanas like the idea of FBS, but many of the school's in the MWC have three times the budget. If presented a regional league and similar budgets, the Montanas would be interested.

This is just the first in a series of statements from Staben and Fullerton over the next several months. Staben has stated that a regional conference has advantages. He didn't say anything about FCS.

Why hasn't the WAC and Atlantic Sun taken more DII moveups in the past several years? It's because they know there will be a major reorganization of lower conferences over the next several years. The Summit will disband because it will get poached to death, the WAC will takeep remaining Big Sky FCS teams, and the ASUN will get the homeless Summit and WAC midwest teams and put them in a separate division.

-OR-

Idaho stays FBS and joins the MWC as a full member, along with Montana and Montana St.

The remaining Big Sky schools stay FCS, where they belong, and vote to kick UND out, since they're tired of traveling all the way to Grand Forks, which had no business being in a western conference in the first place.

UND then joins the Summit as a full member and the MVFC for football, where they belong (for both). They also get Denver and Omaha as all sports rivals in the Summit.


Works for me.

Idaho, Montana and Montana State could form a Big Sky FBS conference. Take Portland State, Eastern Washington, Northern Arizona, Cal-Davis, Cal-Poly, New Mexico State, North Dakota State, Sacramento State, South Dakota State for a 12 team conference. Promote GNAC as a whole to FCS, and have the rest of the FCS Big Sky members join GNAC for all sports. Move some GNAC schools that have no football to the WAC like the Alaska twins, Washington schools, NW. Nazarene Idaho and so forth. Montana State-Billings is closer in restarting football to be part of the Big Sky FCS football member which you could still keep North Dakota as a member.

(01-09-2016 02:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-09-2016 01:13 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  Wichita State isn't moving until 2019 at the earliest. The Missouri Valley Conference has racked up a pile of credits, and there are still credits earned by Creighton that have not been paid:

2016-17: 12 shares from Creighton left behind ($3.30 million)
2017-18: 6 shares from Creighton left behind. ($1.65 million)
2018-19: 2 shares from Creighton left behind ($0.66 million)

What Wichita State should do is take their fellow 5 conference mates who play football to form a new all-sports FCS conference:

West - North Dakota, North Dakota State, South Dakota, South Dakota State, Northern Iowa, Wichita State
East - Missouri State, Western Illinois, Illinois State, Southern Illinois, Indiana State, Murray State

By taking more than 50% of the MVC with them, all of the tournament credits revert to the schools that earned them. It might actually be worth taking a school llke Oral Roberts instead of North Dakota because then the Summit League's credits would revert to the schools, and Youngstown State's football program could just simply follow the rest of the MVFC to the new league to stand in as ORU's football team.

The remaining four schools in the MVC (Bradley, Drake, Evansville, Loyola-Chicago) would have no residual tournament credits, and essentially be homeless. The Horizon League, Ohio Valley Conference, and Summit League would scoop up the remaining schools.

I don't see anyone going for that. The Dakota schools have a really good thing going in the Summit. They're kings there. The tournament is in Sioux Falls. It's generally Dakota schools winning the NCAA bids.

The MVC schools really like that conference. Particularly N Iowa, Drake, MO St and the IL/IN schools.

That's precisely why the rest of the Slummit wants to leave: nothing says big time more than Sioux Falls. Why did UMKC leave again?

IPFW and IUPUI would be better served in the ASun, and they know it.

(01-08-2016 11:27 PM)rknj8993 Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 11:08 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  The Sun Belt is really in an awkward position due to Texas-Arlington and Little Rock. If the conference replaces Idaho or New Mexico State with another full member (or two), the Sun Belt will have 13 or 14 members for basketball. That itself isn't a huge problem, but it means everyone is taking a pay cut by admitting another member. Unless if the travel savings are enough to offset that, then it would be best to keep the status quo.

I do feel that if Texas-Arlington announces it is starting football, Idaho is gone. The same would apply to Little Rock starting football, but the Fayetteville campus dominates the University of Arkansas System.

It's my opinion that UTA and UALR should also be shown the door. The Sun Belt is the only G5 or P5 conference with football-less schools as full members. If Idaho and NMSU are gone, then UTA and UALR should be gone, too. Bring in two other members that can bring the full package and not just a part of it.

I can see that happening but the two schools replacing the four would have to fit.
That is as travel partners that is a big deal in the SBC.
So Missouri ST would easily take a spot probably SHSU as well.

Missouri St would be downgrading in basketball and leaving the top FCS football conference.
The MVFC and MVC combo is as good or better especially if you are a basketball school.
losing Wichita ST and UNI in basketball and NDSU and three or four other ranked teams in FCS football.
Now if they were a football school like App ST they would join the Sun Belt.

(01-09-2016 08:23 PM)MJG Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 11:27 PM)rknj8993 Wrote:  

(01-08-2016 11:08 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  The Sun Belt is really in an awkward position due to Texas-Arlington and Little Rock. If the conference replaces Idaho or New Mexico State with another full member (or two), the Sun Belt will have 13 or 14 members for basketball. That itself isn't a huge problem, but it means everyone is taking a pay cut by admitting another member. Unless if the travel savings are enough to offset that, then it would be best to keep the status quo.

I do feel that if Texas-Arlington announces it is starting football, Idaho is gone. The same would apply to Little Rock starting football, but the Fayetteville campus dominates the University of Arkansas System.

It's my opinion that UTA and UALR should also be shown the door. The Sun Belt is the only G5 or P5 conference with football-less schools as full members. If Idaho and NMSU are gone, then UTA and UALR should be gone, too. Bring in two other members that can bring the full package and not just a part of it.

I can see that happening but the two schools replacing the four would have to fit.
That is as travel partners that is a big deal in the SBC.
So Missouri ST would easily take a spot probably SHSU as well.

Missouri St would be downgrading in basketball and leaving the top FCS football conference.
The MVFC and MVC combo is as good or better especially if you are a basketball school.
losing Wichita ST and UNI in basketball and NDSU and three or four other ranked teams in FCS football.
Now if they were a football school like App ST they would join the Sun Belt.

Problem is Sam Houston State have been showing a lack of fan support in football. Lamar is much better, and they could easily replace a large TV market if UTA gets shown the door.

It's weird to think how Idaho and Montana were in the precursor to the Pac-12. One has to wonder what it would be like if they were invited after the PCC broke up.

(01-09-2016 08:37 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  It's weird to think how Idaho and Montana were in the precursor to the Pac-12. One has to wonder what it would be like if they were invited after the PCC broke up.

It is a fun exercise, but Idaho and Montana were outcasts in the Pacific Coast Conference. USC only played one road game versus Idaho and none versus Montana. In addition, they didn't play many games against USC.

(01-09-2016 10:36 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Idaho and Montana were outcasts in the Pacific Coast Conference. USC only played one road game versus Idaho and none versus Montana. In addition, they didn't play many games against USC.

Back in the day, being in the same conference didn't necessarily mean playing each other often, especially in football. There were a lot of long-term "misses" in the SEC, for example. Georgia and LSU didn't play each other in football between their 1953 game and their 1978 game