Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
CUSA/Group of 5 TV dollars.
Author Message
redfan Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 375
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation: 9
I Root For: all
Location:
Post: #61
RE: CUSA/Group of 5 TV dollars.
(06-08-2016 04:35 PM)ARSTATEFAN1986 Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 12:57 PM)redfan Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 12:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 12:25 PM)redfan Wrote:  There have been several of these "reorganize the CUSA" threads. Most times it comes from outside the conference. I have yet to hear a CUSA member say they want to go join Sunbelt teams, which this is really all about. It is not going to happen.

Well it won't come from a message board thread. It will come from a university president saying "This S### sucks. How do we fix it"

That's how MWC, SEC, ACC, CUSA, Big XII, Big 8, WAC, Pac-12 all started.

A CUSA member would be represented by the president and none have any desire to join with Sunbelt teams in any type of reorganization. It is not going to happen.

The only CUSA teams that the Belt would consider are Southern Miss and Rice.

Southern Miss and Rice are part of the total membership of CUSA that would not want an association with sunbelt teams in any type of reorganization. I do not know how else to say it. Not going to happen. The leadership has said that if CUSA ever needs a new member there are several schools that are interested.
06-08-2016 07:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #62
RE: CUSA/Group of 5 TV dollars.
(06-08-2016 07:18 PM)redfan Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 04:35 PM)ARSTATEFAN1986 Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 12:57 PM)redfan Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 12:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 12:25 PM)redfan Wrote:  There have been several of these "reorganize the CUSA" threads. Most times it comes from outside the conference. I have yet to hear a CUSA member say they want to go join Sunbelt teams, which this is really all about. It is not going to happen.

Well it won't come from a message board thread. It will come from a university president saying "This S### sucks. How do we fix it"

That's how MWC, SEC, ACC, CUSA, Big XII, Big 8, WAC, Pac-12 all started.

A CUSA member would be represented by the president and none have any desire to join with Sunbelt teams in any type of reorganization. It is not going to happen.

The only CUSA teams that the Belt would consider are Southern Miss and Rice.

Southern Miss and Rice are part of the total membership of CUSA that would not want an association with sunbelt teams in any type of reorganization. I do not know how else to say it. Not going to happen. The leadership has said that if CUSA ever needs a new member there are several schools that are interested.

Okeydokey keep saying it since you feel the need.
06-08-2016 07:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #63
RE: CUSA/Group of 5 TV dollars.
(06-08-2016 07:12 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 02:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 01:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 12:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 12:25 PM)redfan Wrote:  There have been several of these "reorganize the CUSA" threads. Most times it comes from outside the conference. I have yet to hear a CUSA member say they want to go join Sunbelt teams, which this is really all about. It is not going to happen.

Well it won't come from a message board thread. It will come from a university president saying "This S### sucks. How do we fix it"

That's how MWC, SEC, ACC, CUSA, Big XII, Big 8, WAC, Pac-12 all started.

The "MWC approach", where a few schools unilaterally start a breakaway league and leave their former conference mates to pick up the pieces, would be the only feasible way to do anything like this. Secret meeting in San Antonio or wherever, take who you want for your new league, and find some loophole to avoid exit fees. Let the remaining SBC and CUSA schools figure out who has to stay with UL-Monroe and the no-football SBC schools (UT-Arlington and UALR), how they put the remaining schools back together, etc.

But the NCAA rule changes on autobids and "core conferences" make it very unattractive to start a brand new conference. They have effectively blocked future use of the MWC approach.

The alternative is getting 26 sets of school administrators, all under pressure from their various constituencies, to agree upon and accept a massive reshuffling of two conferences, without offering each of them a benefit large enough to make them want to do it.

I don't think so. I think IF it were to happen, it would come from an initiative where each conference sends a few representatives to study the idea. Kinda like the way the Big-8 and SWC began toying with the idea of a merger---or the way CUSA-MW contemplated the same thing. They would just look at the costs and the logistics and see if it made sense. If it did, then perhaps the discussion becomes more serious. If not---that's the end of.

Either way, it clear that CUSA is reacting. They have cut conference costs, adjusted the number of teams in the basketball tournament, and are discussing the use of divisions outside of football (which would accomplish some of the same savings that reorganizing leagues would do).

The opening gambit was how to make 16 work to get them more money. They supposedly looked at a one conference model and a guaranteed number of crossover games before concluding that there was a lot of value in two SWC members and as a practical matter needed four (with Big 8 supposedly agnostic on which other two leading to Baylor rather than Houston).

Here the value of NCAA units, TV, and CFP money is equal, the only serious differential is geography.

The Big 8 did talk about merging with the SWC for a second but only a second. Houston was never considered for the Big 12. There was no "Baylor vs Houston" thing. Let's not get that going....the only other schools mentioned at that time were BYU and New Mexico for a possible Big 14. The big 12 even trademarked the Big 14 moniker. It's all on Wikipedia for the younger fans to read. I was there in Lubbock when as it was going down. Texas Tech fans were worried for a second that they'd be going to the WAC. I remember my buddy boldly saying "Dude, Texas Tech is going to the WAC." That was an interesting time in my life haha...
Cheers!
06-08-2016 07:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ark30inf Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,639
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 588
I Root For: Arkansas State
Location:
Post: #64
RE: CUSA/Group of 5 TV dollars.
I've got an idea. Let's just all stay where we are and both get new commissioners.
06-08-2016 07:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #65
RE: CUSA/Group of 5 TV dollars.
(06-08-2016 07:17 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 06:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 04:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 02:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 01:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The "MWC approach", where a few schools unilaterally start a breakaway league and leave their former conference mates to pick up the pieces, would be the only feasible way to do anything like this. Secret meeting in San Antonio or wherever, take who you want for your new league, and find some loophole to avoid exit fees. Let the remaining SBC and CUSA schools figure out who has to stay with UL-Monroe and the no-football SBC schools (UT-Arlington and UALR), how they put the remaining schools back together, etc.

But the NCAA rule changes on autobids and "core conferences" make it very unattractive to start a brand new conference. They have effectively blocked future use of the MWC approach.

The alternative is getting 26 sets of school administrators, all under pressure from their various constituencies, to agree upon and accept a massive reshuffling of two conferences, without offering each of them a benefit large enough to make them want to do it.

I don't think so. I think IF it were to happen, it would come from an initiative where each conference sends a few representatives to study the idea. Kinda like the way the Big-8 and SWC began toying with the idea of a merger---or the way CUSA-MW contemplated the same thing. They would just look at the costs and the logistics and see if it made sense. If it did, then perhaps the discussion becomes more serious. If not---that's the end of.

Either way, it clear that CUSA is reacting. They have cut conference costs, adjusted the number of teams in the basketball tournament, and are discussing the use of divisions outside of football (which would accomplish some of the same savings that reorganizing leagues would do).

I think you are overly optimistic about the possibility of 26 schools all cooperating. It is far easier to find a solution that works well for a few than a solution that works well for everyone, so people tend to just look for a solution that works for themselves. Look at the Big 8/SWC example you mention -- the result was that the Big 8 wanted to just invite two of the SWC schools to join the Big 8, and 4 schools were ultimately cut out of the deal and left to fend for themselves.

As for cutting costs -- that is the area in which conferences could cooperate. Think about having one commissioner and one office staff to administer both the Sun Belt and CUSA. They could probably save $5-10 million/year by doing that.

Lol...I never said it would happen. My comments have been made in the context of the conditions required in order for these CUSA/Sunbelt mash-up fantasies to possibly come true. Step #1 was TV revenue and bowl opportunities would have to equalize. That has basically occurred.

Any MW style airport deal is off the table because starting a new conference isn't viable with the signed CFP deal locked in for 12 years and a long wait for auto bids. That means you have to work within the frame work of the existing conferences. So---that requires a cooperative effort. Can you get 26 schools to buy in? Probably not. But the truth is---you probably only need a super majority in each conference to actually pull it off. That said, I think it would work better if everyone buys in. It will likley require some sort of trigger to create movement toward this type of solution. If the financial pressures begin to become an issue---that might be the type of thing that makes everyone more cooperative in considering this reorganization option.

That said, if these spread out conferences simply utilized their football divisions for basketball and non-revenue sports---that would probably yield many of the same benefits without all the hoops to jump through.

Let's say CUSA east wants a divorce and they like or can tolerate AppSt, Coastal, GaSt, GaSo. Maybe they want UAB to come play too.

How long do you think it would take for the Sun Belt to vote to expand to 17 or 18 taking all of those schools?

Moment it happens CUSA West's remaining 6-7 teams absolutely have to add schools and they can add Sun Belt west schools, FCS schools or suck an egg.

Too risky for risk-averse university presidents. SBC invites 7 CUSA schools, the other 7 in CUSA collect the exit fees from the departing 7 and then invite NMSU if they have to; the Sun Belt ends up having to keep 18 or 19 members and their new members have to write seven-figure checks to CUSA out of their tight athletic budgets.

Or even if the SBC schools have promised each other to not accept CUSA invitations, maybe Texas State, ULL, and/or Arkansas State slip out of that promise and join CUSA anyway. Remember Fresno State and Nevada promising the WAC they would turn down an invitation from the MWC, and then accepting an invitation from the MWC a few days later? I bet the Sun Belt commissioner remembers that.
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2016 07:55 PM by Wedge.)
06-08-2016 07:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #66
RE: CUSA/Group of 5 TV dollars.
(06-08-2016 07:24 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 07:12 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 02:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 01:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 12:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Well it won't come from a message board thread. It will come from a university president saying "This S### sucks. How do we fix it"

That's how MWC, SEC, ACC, CUSA, Big XII, Big 8, WAC, Pac-12 all started.

The "MWC approach", where a few schools unilaterally start a breakaway league and leave their former conference mates to pick up the pieces, would be the only feasible way to do anything like this. Secret meeting in San Antonio or wherever, take who you want for your new league, and find some loophole to avoid exit fees. Let the remaining SBC and CUSA schools figure out who has to stay with UL-Monroe and the no-football SBC schools (UT-Arlington and UALR), how they put the remaining schools back together, etc.

But the NCAA rule changes on autobids and "core conferences" make it very unattractive to start a brand new conference. They have effectively blocked future use of the MWC approach.

The alternative is getting 26 sets of school administrators, all under pressure from their various constituencies, to agree upon and accept a massive reshuffling of two conferences, without offering each of them a benefit large enough to make them want to do it.

I don't think so. I think IF it were to happen, it would come from an initiative where each conference sends a few representatives to study the idea. Kinda like the way the Big-8 and SWC began toying with the idea of a merger---or the way CUSA-MW contemplated the same thing. They would just look at the costs and the logistics and see if it made sense. If it did, then perhaps the discussion becomes more serious. If not---that's the end of.

Either way, it clear that CUSA is reacting. They have cut conference costs, adjusted the number of teams in the basketball tournament, and are discussing the use of divisions outside of football (which would accomplish some of the same savings that reorganizing leagues would do).

The opening gambit was how to make 16 work to get them more money. They supposedly looked at a one conference model and a guaranteed number of crossover games before concluding that there was a lot of value in two SWC members and as a practical matter needed four (with Big 8 supposedly agnostic on which other two leading to Baylor rather than Houston).

Here the value of NCAA units, TV, and CFP money is equal, the only serious differential is geography.

The Big 8 did talk about merging with the SWC for a second but only a second. Houston was never considered for the Big 12. There was no "Baylor vs Houston" thing. Let's not get that going....the only other schools mentioned at that time were BYU and New Mexico for a possible Big 14. The big 12 even trademarked the Big 14 moniker. It's all on Wikipedia for the younger fans to read. I was there in Lubbock when as it was going down. Texas Tech fans were worried for a second that they'd be going to the WAC. I remember my buddy boldly saying "Dude, Texas Tech is going to the WAC." That was an interesting time in my life haha...
Cheers!

Not sure how this thread swerved in this direction..but--

You clearly have no earthly idea what you're talking about on this issue. As late as December 1993, representatives from every Big-8 and SWC school met in Houston discussing merger talks. These talks had gone on for nearly 3 years. Now, frankly, by December 1993, Im pretty certain everyone at the table but SMU, Houston, TCU, Rice, Tech, and Baylor already knew there would be no complete merger. But these talks had been ongoing for nearly 3 years, so anyone who acts like the idea a full merger had been junked after a few minutes---is just completely clueless with respect to what really happened back then. There is a December 1993 Houston Chronicle article in their archives that supports every word Ive stated---but, unfortunately, its no longer available on the web. The link I saved for exactly these times is now dead.

I guess life on the internet is limited for anything written in 1993.
(This post was last modified: 06-08-2016 08:05 PM by Attackcoog.)
06-08-2016 07:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billybobby777 Offline
The REAL BillyBobby
*

Posts: 11,898
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 502
I Root For: ECU, Army
Location: Houston dont sleepon
Post: #67
RE: CUSA/Group of 5 TV dollars.
(06-08-2016 07:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 07:24 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 07:12 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 02:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 01:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The "MWC approach", where a few schools unilaterally start a breakaway league and leave their former conference mates to pick up the pieces, would be the only feasible way to do anything like this. Secret meeting in San Antonio or wherever, take who you want for your new league, and find some loophole to avoid exit fees. Let the remaining SBC and CUSA schools figure out who has to stay with UL-Monroe and the no-football SBC schools (UT-Arlington and UALR), how they put the remaining schools back together, etc.

But the NCAA rule changes on autobids and "core conferences" make it very unattractive to start a brand new conference. They have effectively blocked future use of the MWC approach.

The alternative is getting 26 sets of school administrators, all under pressure from their various constituencies, to agree upon and accept a massive reshuffling of two conferences, without offering each of them a benefit large enough to make them want to do it.

I don't think so. I think IF it were to happen, it would come from an initiative where each conference sends a few representatives to study the idea. Kinda like the way the Big-8 and SWC began toying with the idea of a merger---or the way CUSA-MW contemplated the same thing. They would just look at the costs and the logistics and see if it made sense. If it did, then perhaps the discussion becomes more serious. If not---that's the end of.

Either way, it clear that CUSA is reacting. They have cut conference costs, adjusted the number of teams in the basketball tournament, and are discussing the use of divisions outside of football (which would accomplish some of the same savings that reorganizing leagues would do).

The opening gambit was how to make 16 work to get them more money. They supposedly looked at a one conference model and a guaranteed number of crossover games before concluding that there was a lot of value in two SWC members and as a practical matter needed four (with Big 8 supposedly agnostic on which other two leading to Baylor rather than Houston).

Here the value of NCAA units, TV, and CFP money is equal, the only serious differential is geography.

The Big 8 did talk about merging with the SWC for a second but only a second. Houston was never considered for the Big 12. There was no "Baylor vs Houston" thing. Let's not get that going....the only other schools mentioned at that time were BYU and New Mexico for a possible Big 14. The big 12 even trademarked the Big 14 moniker. It's all on Wikipedia for the younger fans to read. I was there in Lubbock when as it was going down. Texas Tech fans were worried for a second that they'd be going to the WAC. I remember my buddy boldly saying "Dude, Texas Tech is going to the WAC." That was an interesting time in my life haha...
Cheers!

Not sure how this thread swerved in this direction..but--

You clearly have no earthly idea what you're talking about on this issue. As late as December 1993, representatives from every Big-8 and SWC school met in Houston discussing merger talks. These talks had gone on for nearly 3 years. Now, frankly, by December 1993, Im pretty certain everyone at the table but SMU, Houston, TCU, Rice, Tech, and Baylor already knew there would be no complete merger. But these talks had been ongoing for nearly 3 years, so anyone who acts like the idea a full merger had been junked after a few minutes---is just completely clueless with respect to what really happened back then. There is a December 1993 Houston Chronicle article in their archives that supports every word Ive stated---but, unfortunately, its no longer available on the web. The link I saved for exactly these times is now dead.

I guess life on the internet is limited for anything written in 1993.

Ok ok yes the Big 8 and the SWC discussed merging. Everyone knows that. The poster said "the big 8 was agnostic between leading to Baylor over Houston". There wasn't any "Baylor vs Houston" arguments. There was no such thing. That wasn't even a topic, a matter of consideration. Houston wasn't even trying to be a big 12 member. In the early 90's Houston was out of the loop. My goodness...you know this. Why do you get so sensitive with me and make this into Coog stuff? It's not all about Houston.
Cheers!
06-08-2016 08:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BeagleUSM Offline
Thrillsville
*

Posts: 10,302
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation: 360
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location: Hattiesburg
Post: #68
RE: CUSA/Group of 5 TV dollars.
The South 12

EAST: WKU, MTSU, Marshall, Georgia Southern, UAB, Appalachian State
WEST: South Alabama, Southern Miss, LaTech, Arkansas State, ULL, Rice
06-08-2016 10:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,109
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 763
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #69
RE: CUSA/Group of 5 TV dollars.
(06-07-2016 09:19 PM)BullsFanatic Wrote:  I think that we are mostly in agreement that a reorganization into travel friendly conferences makes sense with the TV contract as low as it is. C-USA should be able to split into two with both conferences getting an auto-bid (like the Big East and American), allowing the Sun Belt to survive as well.
The American kept the autobid and the Big East was entitled to one under the rules once they were added by legislation to the list of Division 1 conferences.

So if you are using that precedent, that is your foundation ... a group breaking away from CUSA that is entitled as a group to an autobid if they are added by legislation to the list of Division 1 conferences.

And following that same precedent, it wouldn't be a nice neat and tidy rearrangement, it would be some media broadcaster saying "we'll give you $X if you bring these schools and form an 8 school conference, plus a little more (for the extra inventory) if you form a 10 school conference", and that will be step 1, and then the left behind schools will have to sort out what they are going to do in response.

So the most likely outcome would be exactly one of the new conferences actually makes geographic sense (because at this level of profile the only plausible media network that makes that offer is a regional network) and the other one or two is whatever could be cobbled together for survival.
(This post was last modified: 06-09-2016 01:30 AM by BruceMcF.)
06-09-2016 01:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 44,738
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2860
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #70
RE: CUSA/Group of 5 TV dollars.
(06-08-2016 08:47 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 07:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 07:24 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 07:12 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 02:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I don't think so. I think IF it were to happen, it would come from an initiative where each conference sends a few representatives to study the idea. Kinda like the way the Big-8 and SWC began toying with the idea of a merger---or the way CUSA-MW contemplated the same thing. They would just look at the costs and the logistics and see if it made sense. If it did, then perhaps the discussion becomes more serious. If not---that's the end of.

Either way, it clear that CUSA is reacting. They have cut conference costs, adjusted the number of teams in the basketball tournament, and are discussing the use of divisions outside of football (which would accomplish some of the same savings that reorganizing leagues would do).

The opening gambit was how to make 16 work to get them more money. They supposedly looked at a one conference model and a guaranteed number of crossover games before concluding that there was a lot of value in two SWC members and as a practical matter needed four (with Big 8 supposedly agnostic on which other two leading to Baylor rather than Houston).

Here the value of NCAA units, TV, and CFP money is equal, the only serious differential is geography.

The Big 8 did talk about merging with the SWC for a second but only a second. Houston was never considered for the Big 12. There was no "Baylor vs Houston" thing. Let's not get that going....the only other schools mentioned at that time were BYU and New Mexico for a possible Big 14. The big 12 even trademarked the Big 14 moniker. It's all on Wikipedia for the younger fans to read. I was there in Lubbock when as it was going down. Texas Tech fans were worried for a second that they'd be going to the WAC. I remember my buddy boldly saying "Dude, Texas Tech is going to the WAC." That was an interesting time in my life haha...
Cheers!

Not sure how this thread swerved in this direction..but--

You clearly have no earthly idea what you're talking about on this issue. As late as December 1993, representatives from every Big-8 and SWC school met in Houston discussing merger talks. These talks had gone on for nearly 3 years. Now, frankly, by December 1993, Im pretty certain everyone at the table but SMU, Houston, TCU, Rice, Tech, and Baylor already knew there would be no complete merger. But these talks had been ongoing for nearly 3 years, so anyone who acts like the idea a full merger had been junked after a few minutes---is just completely clueless with respect to what really happened back then. There is a December 1993 Houston Chronicle article in their archives that supports every word Ive stated---but, unfortunately, its no longer available on the web. The link I saved for exactly these times is now dead.

I guess life on the internet is limited for anything written in 1993.

Ok ok yes the Big 8 and the SWC discussed merging. Everyone knows that. The poster said "the big 8 was agnostic between leading to Baylor over Houston". There wasn't any "Baylor vs Houston" arguments. There was no such thing. That wasn't even a topic, a matter of consideration. Houston wasn't even trying to be a big 12 member. In the early 90's Houston was out of the loop. My goodness...you know this. Why do you get so sensitive with me and make this into Coog stuff? It's not all about Houston.
Cheers!

I never said a word about a Baylor-Houston decision. I responded to your very first sentence that basically dismissed years of merger talks.

I think all the poster meant by the "agnostic" comment is that the Big-8 wanted Texas and Texas A&M. They were willing to take a couple of tag alongs if that's what it took to get Texas political skids greased. Any two of Baylor, Tech, Houston, TCU, Rice---I dont think the Big 8 really cared. That was a internal Texas political thing---The Big 8 was agnostic. As long as the 4-team package included UT and Aggie---the Big8 was cool.
(This post was last modified: 06-09-2016 01:39 AM by Attackcoog.)
06-09-2016 01:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #71
RE: CUSA/Group of 5 TV dollars.
(06-09-2016 01:35 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 08:47 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 07:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 07:24 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 07:12 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The opening gambit was how to make 16 work to get them more money. They supposedly looked at a one conference model and a guaranteed number of crossover games before concluding that there was a lot of value in two SWC members and as a practical matter needed four (with Big 8 supposedly agnostic on which other two leading to Baylor rather than Houston).

Here the value of NCAA units, TV, and CFP money is equal, the only serious differential is geography.

The Big 8 did talk about merging with the SWC for a second but only a second. Houston was never considered for the Big 12. There was no "Baylor vs Houston" thing. Let's not get that going....the only other schools mentioned at that time were BYU and New Mexico for a possible Big 14. The big 12 even trademarked the Big 14 moniker. It's all on Wikipedia for the younger fans to read. I was there in Lubbock when as it was going down. Texas Tech fans were worried for a second that they'd be going to the WAC. I remember my buddy boldly saying "Dude, Texas Tech is going to the WAC." That was an interesting time in my life haha...
Cheers!

Not sure how this thread swerved in this direction..but--

You clearly have no earthly idea what you're talking about on this issue. As late as December 1993, representatives from every Big-8 and SWC school met in Houston discussing merger talks. These talks had gone on for nearly 3 years. Now, frankly, by December 1993, Im pretty certain everyone at the table but SMU, Houston, TCU, Rice, Tech, and Baylor already knew there would be no complete merger. But these talks had been ongoing for nearly 3 years, so anyone who acts like the idea a full merger had been junked after a few minutes---is just completely clueless with respect to what really happened back then. There is a December 1993 Houston Chronicle article in their archives that supports every word Ive stated---but, unfortunately, its no longer available on the web. The link I saved for exactly these times is now dead.

I guess life on the internet is limited for anything written in 1993.

Ok ok yes the Big 8 and the SWC discussed merging. Everyone knows that. The poster said "the big 8 was agnostic between leading to Baylor over Houston". There wasn't any "Baylor vs Houston" arguments. There was no such thing. That wasn't even a topic, a matter of consideration. Houston wasn't even trying to be a big 12 member. In the early 90's Houston was out of the loop. My goodness...you know this. Why do you get so sensitive with me and make this into Coog stuff? It's not all about Houston.
Cheers!

I never said a word about a Baylor-Houston decision. I responded to your very first sentence that basically dismissed years of merger talks.

I think all the poster meant by the "agnostic" comment is that the Big-8 wanted Texas and Texas A&M. They were willing to take a couple of tag alongs if that's what it took to get Texas political skids greased. Any two of Baylor, Tech, Houston, TCU, Rice---I dont think the Big 8 really cared. That was a internal Texas political thing---The Big 8 was agnostic. As long as the 4-team package included UT and Aggie---the Big8 was cool.

How about this for the prior poster.

The Big 8 wanted UT and TAMU and would have taken Sallys Beauty College and Bozo's Clown College at 11 and 12 if that's what it took. 11 and 12 were never vital to the plan.

One of the articles from long ago said that Big 8 and SWC put two proposals to ABC
1. Full merger
2. Remain independent but everyone would play two games vs the other league.

After they got their answer Big 8 went to ABC and asked value for
Big 8 +SWC
Big 8 + UT/TAMU and two more
Big 8 + TAMU/UT

The best deal was the 10 team set but UT and TAMU wouldn't move without others for whatever reasons.

UT and TAMU were the only thing that mattered in the deal (and remember we operated in a vastly different TV economy. ESPN2 had been on a full year
06-09-2016 07:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MinerInWisconsin Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,685
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 504
I Root For: UTEP, of course
Location: The Frozen Tundra
Post: #72
RE: CUSA/Group of 5 TV dollars.
(06-08-2016 10:56 PM)Beagleagle23 Wrote:  The South 12

EAST: WKU, MTSU, Marshall, Georgia Southern, UAB, Appalachian State
WEST: South Alabama, Southern Miss, LaTech, Arkansas State, ULL, Rice

5 SBC schools and 7 C-USA schools means that would have to be a brand new conference. Under current rules, I really doubt it would happen.

If it did then a truly disjointed conference of left behinds would emerge.

Troy, ULM, Georgia St, Coastal Carolina, Texas St of the SBC left out and UTEP, UTSA, UNT, ODU, Charlotte, FIU and FAU of C-USA left out.

The left behinds would have the option of keeping one of the old conferences going and thereby keeping ncaa auto-bids and cfp money that the new conference would not have or the 6 eastern schools could dig up 2 additions to have the minimum of 8 while the 6 western schools could add NMSU and ?? to have 8, allowing the SBC and C-USA to remain with both getting ncaa auto-bids and cfp money and splitting all that with fewer schools.
06-09-2016 08:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BeagleUSM Offline
Thrillsville
*

Posts: 10,302
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation: 360
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location: Hattiesburg
Post: #73
RE: CUSA/Group of 5 TV dollars.
In this scenario, I'm assuming UTEP gets a MWC bid.
06-09-2016 08:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #74
RE: CUSA/Group of 5 TV dollars.
(06-09-2016 08:00 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  
(06-08-2016 10:56 PM)Beagleagle23 Wrote:  The South 12

EAST: WKU, MTSU, Marshall, Georgia Southern, UAB, Appalachian State
WEST: South Alabama, Southern Miss, LaTech, Arkansas State, ULL, Rice

5 SBC schools and 7 C-USA schools means that would have to be a brand new conference. Under current rules, I really doubt it would happen.

If it did then a truly disjointed conference of left behinds would emerge.

Troy, ULM, Georgia St, Coastal Carolina, Texas St of the SBC left out and UTEP, UTSA, UNT, ODU, Charlotte, FIU and FAU of C-USA left out.

The left behinds would have the option of keeping one of the old conferences going and thereby keeping ncaa auto-bids and cfp money that the new conference would not have or the 6 eastern schools could dig up 2 additions to have the minimum of 8 while the 6 western schools could add NMSU and ?? to have 8, allowing the SBC and C-USA to remain with both getting ncaa auto-bids and cfp money and splitting all that with fewer schools.

I suspect it is a given that all parties agree the current alignments are not ideal.

The hang-up:
1. Specifics of what groups should look like.
2. Being the one who makes the opening move.

Some things are easy. Marshall presumably is going to want to align with the Florida schools. The eastern schools likely have no heartburn over GaSo and absent maybe Charlotte none have heartburn over App State.
No one in the west likely has any heartburn adding or joining AState and maybe could/be a Rice or Tech has some concern over UL Lafayette
My presumption is UAB sees itself better aligned CUSA East and the reality is that when Bankowsky was commissioner he wanted to add two to the west to get UAB in the East.
USM is in a floater spot, do they want to align Texas or Florida?

Really if you work out the CUSA divorce terms everything falls into place.
06-09-2016 09:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #75
RE: CUSA/Group of 5 TV dollars.
The problem is the "politics" of not wanting to be in a league with "lesser" schools. This is basically true in almost every SB/CUSA state.

Texas - NT and Rice see themselves as "above" Texas St.
Louisiana - LA Tech sees itself as "above" Lafayette and Monroe.
Miss/Ala - SoMiss sees itself as "above" USA and UAB sees itself as "above" Troy
Florida/Georgia - F_U see themselves as "above" GA St and GA So
NC/Virginia/WV - Charlotte sees itself as "above" App St and Marshall sees itself as "above" ODU
KY/TN/AR - MTSU and WKU see themselves as "above" Ark St


Note this is also true of southern AAC schools relative to CUSA schools.
(This post was last modified: 06-09-2016 11:28 AM by MplsBison.)
06-09-2016 11:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Online
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 16,741
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1592
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #76
RE: CUSA/Group of 5 TV dollars.
(06-09-2016 11:13 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  The problem is the "politics" of not wanting to be in a league with "lesser" schools. This is basically true in almost every SB/CUSA state.

Texas - NT and Rice see themselves as "above" Texas St.
Louisiana - LA Tech sees itself as "above" Lafayette and Monroe.
Miss/Ala - SoMiss sees itself as "above" USA and UAB sees itself as "above" Troy
Florida/Georgia - F_U see themselves as "above" GA St and GA So
NC/Virginia/WV - Charlotte sees itself as "above" App St and Marshall sees itself as "above" ODU
KY/TN - MTSU and WKU see themselves as "above" Ark St


Note this is also true of southern AAC schools relative to CUSA schools.

I think USA/USM and the LA schools are the only real problems here. Most La Tech posters I've seen said they'd probably be OK with ULL but not ULM.

I think the rest could get along fine.

edit: And maybe Charlotte/App St.
(This post was last modified: 06-09-2016 11:23 AM by mturn017.)
06-09-2016 11:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TrojanCampaign Online
All American
*

Posts: 4,693
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 170
I Root For: USC, AAMU,
Location: Huntsville
Post: #77
RE: CUSA/Group of 5 TV dollars.
(06-09-2016 11:13 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  The problem is the "politics" of not wanting to be in a league with "lesser" schools. This is basically true in almost every SB/CUSA state.

Texas - NT and Rice see themselves as "above" Texas St.
Louisiana - LA Tech sees itself as "above" Lafayette and Monroe.
Miss/Ala - SoMiss sees itself as "above" USA and UAB sees itself as "above" Troy
Florida/Georgia - F_U see themselves as "above" GA St and GA So
NC/Virginia/WV - Charlotte sees itself as "above" App St and Marshall sees itself as "above" ODU
KY/TN - MTSU and WKU see themselves as "above" Ark St


Note this is also true of southern AAC schools relative to CUSA schools.

Yeah....I think reality is going to set on all of these teams in another year or two. Fun fact, Texas State has had two .500 seasons since moving up from FCS in 2012. UNT has had two .500 seasons since 2008 and have constantly been in the bottom ten for almost a decade before.
06-09-2016 11:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #78
RE: CUSA/Group of 5 TV dollars.
Nonetheless, I just don't see a merger/re-org.

The question is, if CUSA wants to get down to 10 -- who would go? Perhaps UTEP and UTSA is an easy one, since they're so far west of everyone else.

Not sure on the other two, unless the AAC does it a favor.
06-09-2016 11:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #79
RE: CUSA/Group of 5 TV dollars.
Think he used last year's CFP rather than averaging CFP payouts as I do and presumes UAB is taking a full share which I do not do.
https://twitter.com/dennisdoddcbs/status...8711926784
06-09-2016 12:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MplsBison Offline
Banned

Posts: 16,648
Joined: Dec 2014
I Root For: NDSU/Minnesota
Location:
Post: #80
RE: CUSA/Group of 5 TV dollars.
Changing the divisor by even just one or two, widely swings the number.

What do the per school numbers look like with a 12 team CUSA? 10 team?
06-09-2016 01:02 PM
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.