(09-04-2016 07:58 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 07:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I was able to have a couple of extended off-the-record visits with Thompson when he was at the Sun Belt. I also used to get insight via a mutual friend who unfortunately has since retired. That doesn't make me an expert on how his mind works but taking all that into account along with what he did with the SBC and what he has done with MWC I have a theory.

I believe that he is dealing with a dissatisfied front range and needs his brand moved further east to survive the renewal of the next TV deal.

Models on the table will be 14 (which moves Boise to the west) and 16 (which moves Boise and USU to the west).

I believe his plan A at a minimum is UTEP (helps the front range) plus at least Rice and probably SMU and Tulsa.

I think Plan A is a non-starter. I don't think Tulsa or SMU have any interest going west again and I don't think even in a raided and TV renegotiated AAC that MWC can offer a package that is so clearly superior they feel they have to take it. I believe also if Houston is taken by the Big XII that Rice is extremely likely to go AAC. SMU, Tulane, and Tulsa are all highly likely to support a Rice candidacy and they comprise enough votes to block any other addition. It's not a hard sell either, puts AAC back in Houston.

That means plan B is more likely and then you are talking UTEP plus either one of UTSA and UNT both of which are problematic to sell to the league, especially the front range because both have been disappointing or a four team addition and then you are looking at Arkansas State, Louisiana Lafayette, Louisiana Tech, and Southern Miss coming into the mix as well and I don't believe La.Tech would consider it unless USM were on board.

That makes Plan B a hard sale to the membership. I don't think NMSU enters the mix, they aren't an addition that either New Mexico or UTEP is going to be crazy about. New Mexico will do all the right things but the reality is they both like NMSU being available to fill one of those non-conference dates on the schedule that can be hard to find a home/home for.

Interesting insight, I guess a UTEP, La. Tech, Arkansas St, Southern Miss 4some makes sense for an eastward expansion. My question is whether or not Southern Miss would be receptive to the idea?

I think you scratch one of those not named UTEP for a Texas school.

I'm personally skeptical of USM interest but these are strange times.

(09-04-2016 08:01 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 07:58 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 07:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I was able to have a couple of extended off-the-record visits with Thompson when he was at the Sun Belt. I also used to get insight via a mutual friend who unfortunately has since retired. That doesn't make me an expert on how his mind works but taking all that into account along with what he did with the SBC and what he has done with MWC I have a theory.

I believe that he is dealing with a dissatisfied front range and needs his brand moved further east to survive the renewal of the next TV deal.

Models on the table will be 14 (which moves Boise to the west) and 16 (which moves Boise and USU to the west).

I believe his plan A at a minimum is UTEP (helps the front range) plus at least Rice and probably SMU and Tulsa.

I think Plan A is a non-starter. I don't think Tulsa or SMU have any interest going west again and I don't think even in a raided and TV renegotiated AAC that MWC can offer a package that is so clearly superior they feel they have to take it. I believe also if Houston is taken by the Big XII that Rice is extremely likely to go AAC. SMU, Tulane, and Tulsa are all highly likely to support a Rice candidacy and they comprise enough votes to block any other addition. It's not a hard sell either, puts AAC back in Houston.

That means plan B is more likely and then you are talking UTEP plus either one of UTSA and UNT both of which are problematic to sell to the league, especially the front range because both have been disappointing or a four team addition and then you are looking at Arkansas State, Louisiana Lafayette, Louisiana Tech, and Southern Miss coming into the mix as well and I don't believe La.Tech would consider it unless USM were on board.

That makes Plan B a hard sale to the membership. I don't think NMSU enters the mix, they aren't an addition that either New Mexico or UTEP is going to be crazy about. New Mexico will do all the right things but the reality is they both like NMSU being available to fill one of those non-conference dates on the schedule that can be hard to find a home/home for.

Interesting insight, I guess a UTEP, La. Tech, Arkansas St, Southern Miss 4some makes sense for an eastward expansion. My question is whether or not Southern Miss would be receptive to the idea?

I think you scratch one of those not named UTEP for a Texas school.

I'm personally skeptical of USM interest but these are strange times.

Strange times indeed. My guess would be that Southern Miss would be hoping for an AAC invite if the BIGXII does indeed expand via the AAC. I guess if they didn't get the invite the MWC might be a little more appealing

West Texas A&M is right there on the front range in the Amarillo area. They might be more of a receptive idea than North Texas and UTSA. West Texas A&M have several conference titles under their belt beating out Texas Tech and the rest.

Portland State might be something the MWC could explore as well.

Montana and Montana State are good partners for Wyoming.

Not sure if Arkansas State, La. Tech or S. Miss. wants this. S. Miss. could go to AAC.

Tulsa might be interested if Wichita State comes along for the ride. Even West Texas A&M had history with them.

If something like that was going to go down---it seems to me the logistics, economics, and composition issue favor a semi-merger between the AAC and MW. If the AAC loses 3 or 4---the option to add the top 5-7 schools from the MW to create a 16 team nationwide conference that's the closest thing to a best of the rest that can be formed given the current landscape.

Yes, it would technically be the AAC raiding the MW---but it's really more of a merger that cuts a bit of fat The MW woud survive with NMS, UTEP, and probably 1 or two other Texas schools.

You know for a while now I have wondered what the end game of conference realignment is? Is it really a complete seperation by the p5 to create a new level in college football? I wonder if a best of the rest conference would be allowed to join in that new level? If so then an eventual merger of the AAC and MW seems inevitable.

(09-04-2016 09:52 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  You know for a while now I have wondered what the end game of conference realignment is? Is it really a complete seperation by the p5 to create a new level in college football? I wonder if a best of the rest conference would be allowed to join in that new level? If so then an eventual merger of the AAC and MW seems inevitable.

I don't believe there is a "planned" end game. Rather a series of short-term decisions with long-term consequences.

It boils down to what is the biggest money grab that any particular group of presidents feel they can do without appearing to be total sellouts to money, without feeling they violated their sense of "collegiality", and won't get them on the wrong side of nasty litigation.

I'm a contrarian. I don't believe there is a grand plan to make the P5 an independent group and a lot of reasons to not do so. It's much cleaner to allow people to hang around with you as "peers" when you can out-recruit them and if they hire good people hire them away at prices those others cannot afford to get close to much less match.

I really believe if a split happens it isn't P5 vs. the world or FBS vs. the rest of Division I. I believe it will be some philosophical divide within the P5 that cannot be resolved to everyone's tolerance.

Look at sport sponsorship numbers for Big 10, Pac-12 and even ACC vs. SEC and Big XII. As a generality (and it is a generality) the first three tend to sponsor more sports spreading their vast wealth across more activities. That is a hint at differing philosophy toward athletics.

Something like aid beyond cost of attendance (or even what IS cost of attendance) could be fracture point that splits the P5 into two different groups

(09-04-2016 07:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I was able to have a couple of extended off-the-record visits with Thompson when he was at the Sun Belt. I also used to get insight via a mutual friend who unfortunately has since retired. That doesn't make me an expert on how his mind works but taking all that into account along with what he did with the SBC and what he has done with MWC I have a theory.

I believe that he is dealing with a dissatisfied front range and needs his brand moved further east to survive the renewal of the next TV deal.

Models on the table will be 14 (which moves Boise to the west) and 16 (which moves Boise and USU to the west).

I believe his plan A at a minimum is UTEP (helps the front range) plus at least Rice and probably SMU and Tulsa.

I think Plan A is a non-starter. I don't think Tulsa or SMU have any interest going west again and I don't think even in a raided and TV renegotiated AAC that MWC can offer a package that is so clearly superior they feel they have to take it. I believe also if Houston is taken by the Big XII that Rice is extremely likely to go AAC. SMU, Tulane, and Tulsa are all highly likely to support a Rice candidacy and they comprise enough votes to block any other addition. It's not a hard sell either, puts AAC back in Houston.

That means plan B is more likely and then you are talking UTEP plus either one of UTSA and UNT both of which are problematic to sell to the league, especially the front range because both have been disappointing or a four team addition and then you are looking at Arkansas State, Louisiana Lafayette, Louisiana Tech, and Southern Miss coming into the mix as well and I don't believe La.Tech would consider it unless USM were on board.

That makes Plan B a hard sale to the membership. I don't think NMSU enters the mix, they aren't an addition that either New Mexico or UTEP is going to be crazy about. New Mexico will do all the right things but the reality is they both like NMSU being available to fill one of those non-conference dates on the schedule that can be hard to find a home/home for.

Great post. I agree with most of this.

I do think that before trying plan A, the MWC would first attempt to add whichever of BYU or Houston loses the P5 sweepstakes, assuming that the Big 12 only expands by two and that Cincinnati gets the first invitation. A variation on this would be trying to land both BYU and Houston, if the Big 12 is foolish enough to pass on both in favor of a Cincinnati-UConn or Cincinnati-USF combo. I strongly doubt the MWC could pull it off in either scenario but the conference would certainly try.

Moving on to Plan A, I agree that Rice will prefer the AAC to the MWC, although I could see that changing if the Big 12 takes 3-4 AAC schools and ESPN responds by cutting the AAC TV payout to less than half of its current level. In that case I think both Rice and SMU would at least think hard about going west in a package deal.

That leaves Plan B. Obviously if the MWC loses CSU or Air Force (unlikely in my opinion) there will be no difficulty selling UTEP as the replacement. If the MWC emerges from Big 12 expansion unscathed, I could still see the conference adding UTEP and UTSA. Both schools are the hometown brand in their respective cities, UTEP has a long and rich history of competition with the Front Range gang, and San Antonio is the third largest Texas MSA and a great destination.

I think you are right that NMSU is a non-starter and I don't see any chance of expanding east of Texas or with an FCS school, but hey, it's conference realignment. Never say never.

(09-04-2016 08:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If something like that was going to go down---it seems to me the logistics, economics, and composition issue favor a semi-merger between the AAC and MW. If the AAC loses 3 or 4---the option to add the top 5-7 schools from the MW to create a 16 team nationwide conference that's the closest thing to a best of the rest that can be formed given the current landscape.

Logistics oppose a MWC-AAC merger with travel too far for non-revenue sports.

What makes more sense is for the MWC and AAC to bulk up to 14 individually to reduce travel costs and then combine forces on a coast-2-coast TV package.

Scenario:
B12 (BYU, Houston)
AAC (NIU, Toledo, SoMiss)
MWC (UTEP, Rice)

AAC East: UConn, Temple, Cincinnati Navy, ECU, USF, UCF
AAC West: Toledo, NIU, Memphis, Tulsa, SMU, Tulane, So. Miss

MWC Mountain: Rice, UTEP, New Mexico, Colorado St, AFA, Wyoming, Utah St
MWC West: Boise, Nevada, UNLV, San Jose, Fresno, SDSU, Hawaii

All four divisions cover the country pretty good from the TV perspective.

(09-04-2016 10:48 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 08:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If something like that was going to go down---it seems to me the logistics, economics, and composition issue favor a semi-merger between the AAC and MW. If the AAC loses 3 or 4---the option to add the top 5-7 schools from the MW to create a 16 team nationwide conference that's the closest thing to a best of the rest that can be formed given the current landscape.

Logistics oppose a MWC-AAC merger with travel too far for non-revenue sports.

What makes more sense is for the MWC and AAC to bulk up to 14 individually to reduce travel costs and then combine forces on a coast-2-coast TV package.

Scenario:
B12 (BYU, Houston)
AAC (NIU, Toledo, SoMiss)
MWC (UTEP, Rice)

AAC East: UConn, Temple, Cincinnati Navy, ECU, USF, UCF
AAC West: Toledo, NIU, Memphis, Tulsa, SMU, Tulane, So. Miss

MWC Mountain: Rice, UTEP, New Mexico, Colorado St, AFA, Wyoming, Utah St
MWC West: Boise, Nevada, UNLV, San Jose, Fresno, SDSU, Hawaii

All four divisions cover the country pretty good from the TV perspective.

That won't work because the money isn't there for 14-16 team conference aligned in a regional footprint. The 16 team national confernce works because you end up with 8-team divisions. These divisions create travel for non-revenue sports that's similar to regional conferences---with a nationwide footprint for revenue sports. In the G5, having the biggest brands aligned in the biggest footprint possible has been the way to increase media value. Uniting the top brands in the east with the top brands in the west would seem to be the next logical step in G5 conference evolution. Then you limit non-revenue sports largely to divisional play to control expenses

(09-04-2016 10:33 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 07:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I was able to have a couple of extended off-the-record visits with Thompson when he was at the Sun Belt. I also used to get insight via a mutual friend who unfortunately has since retired. That doesn't make me an expert on how his mind works but taking all that into account along with what he did with the SBC and what he has done with MWC I have a theory.

I believe that he is dealing with a dissatisfied front range and needs his brand moved further east to survive the renewal of the next TV deal.

Models on the table will be 14 (which moves Boise to the west) and 16 (which moves Boise and USU to the west).

I believe his plan A at a minimum is UTEP (helps the front range) plus at least Rice and probably SMU and Tulsa.

I think Plan A is a non-starter. I don't think Tulsa or SMU have any interest going west again and I don't think even in a raided and TV renegotiated AAC that MWC can offer a package that is so clearly superior they feel they have to take it. I believe also if Houston is taken by the Big XII that Rice is extremely likely to go AAC. SMU, Tulane, and Tulsa are all highly likely to support a Rice candidacy and they comprise enough votes to block any other addition. It's not a hard sell either, puts AAC back in Houston.

That means plan B is more likely and then you are talking UTEP plus either one of UTSA and UNT both of which are problematic to sell to the league, especially the front range because both have been disappointing or a four team addition and then you are looking at Arkansas State, Louisiana Lafayette, Louisiana Tech, and Southern Miss coming into the mix as well and I don't believe La.Tech would consider it unless USM were on board.

That makes Plan B a hard sale to the membership. I don't think NMSU enters the mix, they aren't an addition that either New Mexico or UTEP is going to be crazy about. New Mexico will do all the right things but the reality is they both like NMSU being available to fill one of those non-conference dates on the schedule that can be hard to find a home/home for.

Great post. I agree with most of this.

I do think that before trying plan A, the MWC would first attempt to add whichever of BYU or Houston loses the P5 sweepstakes, assuming that the Big 12 only expands by two and that Cincinnati gets the first invitation. A variation on this would be trying to land both BYU and Houston, if the Big 12 is foolish enough to pass on both in favor of a Cincinnati-UConn or Cincinnati-USF combo. I strongly doubt the MWC could pull it off in either scenario but the conference would certainly try.

Moving on to Plan A, I agree that Rice will prefer the AAC to the MWC, although I could see that changing if the Big 12 takes 3-4 AAC schools and ESPN responds by cutting the AAC TV payout to less than half of its current level. In that case I think both Rice and SMU would at least think hard about going west in a package deal.

That leaves Plan B. Obviously if the MWC loses CSU or Air Force (unlikely in my opinion) there will be no difficulty selling UTEP as the replacement. If the MWC emerges from Big 12 expansion unscathed, I could still see the conference adding UTEP and UTSA. Both schools are the hometown brand in their respective cities, UTEP has a long and rich history of competition with the Front Range gang, and San Antonio is the third largest Texas MSA and a great destination.

I think you are right that NMSU is a non-starter and I don't see any chance of expanding east of Texas or with an FCS school, but hey, it's conference realignment. Never say never.

I figure they have made multiple runs already at BYU and yeah probably would call again if they get passed over by Big XII just to see if the mood has changed. I just started with the presumption that was a non-starter from BYU's viewpoint.

Would not be surprised at all at it ending as UTEP/UTSA very plausible scenario.
While I too doubt that anyone other Tulsa is on the early list outside of Texas, realignment plans rarely go the way the league wishing to expand initially desires (see Florida State to SEC, ACC's surprise addition of Va.Tech, Pac-12 and Texas, and by several accounts UVA and UNC and the Big 10).

Remind me again, but it was the UTEP-Rice combo that came up some months back? It failed then, but now it's back?

I don't know...I remember hearing a fondness for Tulsa. Would LaTech want to go back out west?

(09-04-2016 08:01 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 07:58 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 07:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I was able to have a couple of extended off-the-record visits with Thompson when he was at the Sun Belt. I also used to get insight via a mutual friend who unfortunately has since retired. That doesn't make me an expert on how his mind works but taking all that into account along with what he did with the SBC and what he has done with MWC I have a theory.

I believe that he is dealing with a dissatisfied front range and needs his brand moved further east to survive the renewal of the next TV deal.

Models on the table will be 14 (which moves Boise to the west) and 16 (which moves Boise and USU to the west).

I believe his plan A at a minimum is UTEP (helps the front range) plus at least Rice and probably SMU and Tulsa.

I think Plan A is a non-starter. I don't think Tulsa or SMU have any interest going west again and I don't think even in a raided and TV renegotiated AAC that MWC can offer a package that is so clearly superior they feel they have to take it. I believe also if Houston is taken by the Big XII that Rice is extremely likely to go AAC. SMU, Tulane, and Tulsa are all highly likely to support a Rice candidacy and they comprise enough votes to block any other addition. It's not a hard sell either, puts AAC back in Houston.

That means plan B is more likely and then you are talking UTEP plus either one of UTSA and UNT both of which are problematic to sell to the league, especially the front range because both have been disappointing or a four team addition and then you are looking at Arkansas State, Louisiana Lafayette, Louisiana Tech, and Southern Miss coming into the mix as well and I don't believe La.Tech would consider it unless USM were on board.

That makes Plan B a hard sale to the membership. I don't think NMSU enters the mix, they aren't an addition that either New Mexico or UTEP is going to be crazy about. New Mexico will do all the right things but the reality is they both like NMSU being available to fill one of those non-conference dates on the schedule that can be hard to find a home/home for.

Interesting insight, I guess a UTEP, La. Tech, Arkansas St, Southern Miss 4some makes sense for an eastward expansion. My question is whether or not Southern Miss would be receptive to the idea?

I think you scratch one of those not named UTEP for a Texas school.

I'm personally skeptical of USM interest but these are strange times.

Arkst, Plan B didnt include Texas State. Why don't you see us on the MWC's radar?

(09-04-2016 10:48 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 08:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If something like that was going to go down---it seems to me the logistics, economics, and composition issue favor a semi-merger between the AAC and MW. If the AAC loses 3 or 4---the option to add the top 5-7 schools from the MW to create a 16 team nationwide conference that's the closest thing to a best of the rest that can be formed given the current landscape.

Logistics oppose a MWC-AAC merger with travel too far for non-revenue sports.

What makes more sense is for the MWC and AAC to bulk up to 14 individually to reduce travel costs and then combine forces on a coast-2-coast TV package.

Scenario:
B12 (BYU, Houston)
AAC (NIU, Toledo, SoMiss)
MWC (UTEP, Rice)

AAC East: UConn, Temple, Cincinnati Navy, ECU, USF, UCF
AAC West: Toledo, NIU, Memphis, Tulsa, SMU, Tulane, So. Miss

MWC Mountain: Rice, UTEP, New Mexico, Colorado St, AFA, Wyoming, Utah St
MWC West: Boise, Nevada, UNLV, San Jose, Fresno, SDSU, Hawaii

All four divisions cover the country pretty good from the TV perspective.

I think something like that makes sense. The question is whether you try to control the south by stripping CUSA or whether you also go for strong MAC teams as you suggest.

(09-04-2016 11:32 PM)chrisattsu Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 08:01 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 07:58 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 07:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I was able to have a couple of extended off-the-record visits with Thompson when he was at the Sun Belt. I also used to get insight via a mutual friend who unfortunately has since retired. That doesn't make me an expert on how his mind works but taking all that into account along with what he did with the SBC and what he has done with MWC I have a theory.

I believe that he is dealing with a dissatisfied front range and needs his brand moved further east to survive the renewal of the next TV deal.

Models on the table will be 14 (which moves Boise to the west) and 16 (which moves Boise and USU to the west).

I believe his plan A at a minimum is UTEP (helps the front range) plus at least Rice and probably SMU and Tulsa.

I think Plan A is a non-starter. I don't think Tulsa or SMU have any interest going west again and I don't think even in a raided and TV renegotiated AAC that MWC can offer a package that is so clearly superior they feel they have to take it. I believe also if Houston is taken by the Big XII that Rice is extremely likely to go AAC. SMU, Tulane, and Tulsa are all highly likely to support a Rice candidacy and they comprise enough votes to block any other addition. It's not a hard sell either, puts AAC back in Houston.

That means plan B is more likely and then you are talking UTEP plus either one of UTSA and UNT both of which are problematic to sell to the league, especially the front range because both have been disappointing or a four team addition and then you are looking at Arkansas State, Louisiana Lafayette, Louisiana Tech, and Southern Miss coming into the mix as well and I don't believe La.Tech would consider it unless USM were on board.

That makes Plan B a hard sale to the membership. I don't think NMSU enters the mix, they aren't an addition that either New Mexico or UTEP is going to be crazy about. New Mexico will do all the right things but the reality is they both like NMSU being available to fill one of those non-conference dates on the schedule that can be hard to find a home/home for.

Interesting insight, I guess a UTEP, La. Tech, Arkansas St, Southern Miss 4some makes sense for an eastward expansion. My question is whether or not Southern Miss would be receptive to the idea?

I think you scratch one of those not named UTEP for a Texas school.

I'm personally skeptical of USM interest but these are strange times.

Arkst, Plan B didnt include Texas State. Why don't you see us on the MWC's radar?

Because I think it is unlikely TXST gets picked over UTSA because of the perception TXST is in a quasi-no man's land between Austin and San Antonio and seen as redundant if UTSA is selected.

That may be a bad assumption given that MWC hasn't been as "market oriented" as the leagues in the east but that's my best guess.

UTEP/UTSA/TXST/UNT would make a slick and tight half division I just don't know that they think that way.

(09-04-2016 11:10 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Remind me again, but it was the UTEP-Rice combo that came up some months back? It failed then, but now it's back?

I don't know...I remember hearing a fondness for Tulsa. Would LaTech want to go back out west?

I can't imagine La.Tech wants to go west again but if Texas schools and USM were involved I would expect they'd get over it.

By all accounts UTEP and Rice were discussed and MWC in the spring indicated no interest in expanding and then in a later meeting developed some interest. I tend to suspect the CUSA TV deal has created concern.

(09-05-2016 01:21 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 11:32 PM)chrisattsu Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 08:01 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 07:58 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 07:36 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I was able to have a couple of extended off-the-record visits with Thompson when he was at the Sun Belt. I also used to get insight via a mutual friend who unfortunately has since retired. That doesn't make me an expert on how his mind works but taking all that into account along with what he did with the SBC and what he has done with MWC I have a theory.

I believe that he is dealing with a dissatisfied front range and needs his brand moved further east to survive the renewal of the next TV deal.

Models on the table will be 14 (which moves Boise to the west) and 16 (which moves Boise and USU to the west).

I believe his plan A at a minimum is UTEP (helps the front range) plus at least Rice and probably SMU and Tulsa.

I think Plan A is a non-starter. I don't think Tulsa or SMU have any interest going west again and I don't think even in a raided and TV renegotiated AAC that MWC can offer a package that is so clearly superior they feel they have to take it. I believe also if Houston is taken by the Big XII that Rice is extremely likely to go AAC. SMU, Tulane, and Tulsa are all highly likely to support a Rice candidacy and they comprise enough votes to block any other addition. It's not a hard sell either, puts AAC back in Houston.

That means plan B is more likely and then you are talking UTEP plus either one of UTSA and UNT both of which are problematic to sell to the league, especially the front range because both have been disappointing or a four team addition and then you are looking at Arkansas State, Louisiana Lafayette, Louisiana Tech, and Southern Miss coming into the mix as well and I don't believe La.Tech would consider it unless USM were on board.

That makes Plan B a hard sale to the membership. I don't think NMSU enters the mix, they aren't an addition that either New Mexico or UTEP is going to be crazy about. New Mexico will do all the right things but the reality is they both like NMSU being available to fill one of those non-conference dates on the schedule that can be hard to find a home/home for.

Interesting insight, I guess a UTEP, La. Tech, Arkansas St, Southern Miss 4some makes sense for an eastward expansion. My question is whether or not Southern Miss would be receptive to the idea?

I think you scratch one of those not named UTEP for a Texas school.

I'm personally skeptical of USM interest but these are strange times.

Arkst, Plan B didnt include Texas State. Why don't you see us on the MWC's radar?

Because I think it is unlikely TXST gets picked over UTSA because of the perception TXST is in a quasi-no man's land between Austin and San Antonio and seen as redundant if UTSA is selected.

That may be a bad assumption given that MWC hasn't been as "market oriented" as the leagues in the east but that's my best guess.

UTEP/UTSA/TXST/UNT would make a slick and tight half division I just don't know that they think that way.

I agree with you. UTEP and UTSA make a good combo with decent markets. Got to believe Rice will head east to the AAC. Looks like BIG 12 will expand by two so I think AFA and CSU will sticking around for a while. If Thompson really wants to be bold and think long term he should start working with Portland St and Sacramento St. so that they can move up within three to four years. Both markets are under represented in the pro and have decent enough tv eyeballs.

(09-04-2016 10:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 10:48 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 08:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If something like that was going to go down---it seems to me the logistics, economics, and composition issue favor a semi-merger between the AAC and MW. If the AAC loses 3 or 4---the option to add the top 5-7 schools from the MW to create a 16 team nationwide conference that's the closest thing to a best of the rest that can be formed given the current landscape.

Logistics oppose a MWC-AAC merger with travel too far for non-revenue sports.

What makes more sense is for the MWC and AAC to bulk up to 14 individually to reduce travel costs and then combine forces on a coast-2-coast TV package.

Scenario:
B12 (BYU, Houston)
AAC (NIU, Toledo, SoMiss)
MWC (UTEP, Rice)

AAC East: UConn, Temple, Cincinnati Navy, ECU, USF, UCF
AAC West: Toledo, NIU, Memphis, Tulsa, SMU, Tulane, So. Miss

MWC Mountain: Rice, UTEP, New Mexico, Colorado St, AFA, Wyoming, Utah St
MWC West: Boise, Nevada, UNLV, San Jose, Fresno, SDSU, Hawaii

All four divisions cover the country pretty good from the TV perspective.

That won't work because the money isn't there for 14-16 team conference aligned in a regional footprint. The 16 team national confernce works because you end up with 8-team divisions. These divisions create travel for non-revenue sports that's similar to regional conferences---with a nationwide footprint for revenue sports. In the G5, having the biggest brands aligned in the biggest footprint possible has been the way to increase media value. Uniting the top brands in the east with the top brands in the west would seem to be the next logical step in G5 conference evolution. Then you limit non-revenue sports largely to divisional play to control expenses

You can even punch on up to 18, keep football play within the division (8 games) and even add a 9th game that crosses over and may or may not count in the standings (a handy way to deal with Air Force and Navy needing to play each other). If you have Navy and Hawaii as football only 18 works even better with a snug 16 in hoops which lends itself to home/home within division and four crossover so you see every other division in hoops at home over four years.

If you want to do a national league a raided AAC makes a better starting point assuming two taken Big XII you have 10 football, 9 basketball. That gives you room for 7 full members to be added.

I just don't think you easily solve true cross country because I don't think the money is going to be there.

Boise's Bob Kustra had told people the Broncos had to have at least $4 million in TV from Big East / AAC to make the move viable even with sports other than football in a regional league to save on travel.

I tend to doubt that anything less than 20 teams across all time zones has the critical mass to get truly notable money.

(09-05-2016 01:44 AM)PAC Power Wrote:  

(09-05-2016 01:21 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 11:32 PM)chrisattsu Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 08:01 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 07:58 PM)SouthEastAlaska Wrote:  Interesting insight, I guess a UTEP, La. Tech, Arkansas St, Southern Miss 4some makes sense for an eastward expansion. My question is whether or not Southern Miss would be receptive to the idea?

I think you scratch one of those not named UTEP for a Texas school.

I'm personally skeptical of USM interest but these are strange times.

Arkst, Plan B didnt include Texas State. Why don't you see us on the MWC's radar?

Because I think it is unlikely TXST gets picked over UTSA because of the perception TXST is in a quasi-no man's land between Austin and San Antonio and seen as redundant if UTSA is selected.

That may be a bad assumption given that MWC hasn't been as "market oriented" as the leagues in the east but that's my best guess.

UTEP/UTSA/TXST/UNT would make a slick and tight half division I just don't know that they think that way.

I agree with you. UTEP and UTSA make a good combo with decent markets. Got to believe Rice will head east to the AAC. Looks like BIG 12 will expand by two so I think AFA and CSU will sticking around for a while. If Thompson really wants to be bold and think long term he should start working with Portland St and Sacramento St. so that they can move up within three to four years. Both markets are under represented in the pro and have decent enough tv eyeballs.

Portland State drew 4,898 fans to its season opener and Sac State drew 6,558. Their stadiums seat 22,000 and 21,000 respectively. Despite playing in major cities without NFL franchises, both are a long way from having FBS-level fan support. On the other hand Montana and NDSU sold out their stadiums with crowds of 26,002 and 18,881 in their home openers. I think those are the FCS schools the MWC would most likely consider for expansion if it had no FBS options.

(09-05-2016 01:52 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 10:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 10:48 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 08:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If something like that was going to go down---it seems to me the logistics, economics, and composition issue favor a semi-merger between the AAC and MW. If the AAC loses 3 or 4---the option to add the top 5-7 schools from the MW to create a 16 team nationwide conference that's the closest thing to a best of the rest that can be formed given the current landscape.

Logistics oppose a MWC-AAC merger with travel too far for non-revenue sports.

What makes more sense is for the MWC and AAC to bulk up to 14 individually to reduce travel costs and then combine forces on a coast-2-coast TV package.

Scenario:
B12 (BYU, Houston)
AAC (NIU, Toledo, SoMiss)
MWC (UTEP, Rice)

AAC East: UConn, Temple, Cincinnati Navy, ECU, USF, UCF
AAC West: Toledo, NIU, Memphis, Tulsa, SMU, Tulane, So. Miss

MWC Mountain: Rice, UTEP, New Mexico, Colorado St, AFA, Wyoming, Utah St
MWC West: Boise, Nevada, UNLV, San Jose, Fresno, SDSU, Hawaii

All four divisions cover the country pretty good from the TV perspective.

That won't work because the money isn't there for 14-16 team conference aligned in a regional footprint. The 16 team national confernce works because you end up with 8-team divisions. These divisions create travel for non-revenue sports that's similar to regional conferences---with a nationwide footprint for revenue sports. In the G5, having the biggest brands aligned in the biggest footprint possible has been the way to increase media value. Uniting the top brands in the east with the top brands in the west would seem to be the next logical step in G5 conference evolution. Then you limit non-revenue sports largely to divisional play to control expenses

You can even punch on up to 18, keep football play within the division (8 games) and even add a 9th game that crosses over and may or may not count in the standings (a handy way to deal with Air Force and Navy needing to play each other). If you have Navy and Hawaii as football only 18 works even better with a snug 16 in hoops which lends itself to home/home within division and four crossover so you see every other division in hoops at home over four years.

If you want to do a national league a raided AAC makes a better starting point assuming two taken Big XII you have 10 football, 9 basketball. That gives you room for 7 full members to be added.

I just don't think you easily solve true cross country because I don't think the money is going to be there.

Boise's Bob Kustra had told people the Broncos had to have at least $4 million in TV from Big East / AAC to make the move viable even with sports other than football in a regional league to save on travel.

I tend to doubt that anything less than 20 teams across all time zones has the critical mass to get truly notable money.

Boise's situation with the Big East was very different from what Im proposing. First, Boise, as a "football only" was getting only a 70% share of revenue. Second, Boise was going to have to pay 900K in Big West travel subsidies just to play in what amounted to a lesser Olympic sports league. Plus virtually every non-revenue sport would be making 900 mile trips for every game---all for a pittance in Big West revenue. Not to mention, the Big East apparently decided to leave the western wing as only 2-4 teams---which meant much more travel for football under that proposal for Boise. Frankly, its not hard to believe that it was a bad deal for Boise for anything less than 4 million a year.

What Im proposing would essentially reflect little change from the current scheduling for the MW schools that join. It would be an 8 game schedule---7 of the games being against current MW schools or Texas/OK AAC schools--with one crossover game that would require significant travel (every other year). Basketball would be home and home within the division (14 games) with 4 crossover games. The crossovers would be set up to maximize the best matchups for TV and RPI. So, again, we are only talking 2 games with significant travel. Plus---Its just a good way to juice the RPI's of the leagues best schools.

The Non-revenue sports would just play divisional schedules with maybe a single crossover for variety (or maybe not).

The travel wouldnt have to be that different from what they have nbow. In some ways its almost a glorified pooling of TV rights. I think its the only option left that offers any real hope of increasing income in any meaningful way.

(09-05-2016 01:52 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 10:58 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 10:48 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(09-04-2016 08:37 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If something like that was going to go down---it seems to me the logistics, economics, and composition issue favor a semi-merger between the AAC and MW. If the AAC loses 3 or 4---the option to add the top 5-7 schools from the MW to create a 16 team nationwide conference that's the closest thing to a best of the rest that can be formed given the current landscape.

Logistics oppose a MWC-AAC merger with travel too far for non-revenue sports.

What makes more sense is for the MWC and AAC to bulk up to 14 individually to reduce travel costs and then combine forces on a coast-2-coast TV package.

Scenario:
B12 (BYU, Houston)
AAC (NIU, Toledo, SoMiss)
MWC (UTEP, Rice)

AAC East: UConn, Temple, Cincinnati Navy, ECU, USF, UCF
AAC West: Toledo, NIU, Memphis, Tulsa, SMU, Tulane, So. Miss

MWC Mountain: Rice, UTEP, New Mexico, Colorado St, AFA, Wyoming, Utah St
MWC West: Boise, Nevada, UNLV, San Jose, Fresno, SDSU, Hawaii

All four divisions cover the country pretty good from the TV perspective.

That won't work because the money isn't there for 14-16 team conference aligned in a regional footprint. The 16 team national confernce works because you end up with 8-team divisions. These divisions create travel for non-revenue sports that's similar to regional conferences---with a nationwide footprint for revenue sports. In the G5, having the biggest brands aligned in the biggest footprint possible has been the way to increase media value. Uniting the top brands in the east with the top brands in the west would seem to be the next logical step in G5 conference evolution. Then you limit non-revenue sports largely to divisional play to control expenses

You can even punch on up to 18, keep football play within the division (8 games) and even add a 9th game that crosses over and may or may not count in the standings (a handy way to deal with Air Force and Navy needing to play each other). If you have Navy and Hawaii as football only 18 works even better with a snug 16 in hoops which lends itself to home/home within division and four crossover so you see every other division in hoops at home over four years.

If you want to do a national league a raided AAC makes a better starting point assuming two taken Big XII you have 10 football, 9 basketball. That gives you room for 7 full members to be added.

I just don't think you easily solve true cross country because I don't think the money is going to be there.

Boise's Bob Kustra had told people the Broncos had to have at least $4 million in TV from Big East / AAC to make the move viable even with sports other than football in a regional league to save on travel.

I tend to doubt that anything less than 20 teams across all time zones has the critical mass to get truly notable money.

Another obstacle to a merger is that there's no satisfactory way to split the divisions in a combined MWC-AAC that has 18 or 20 members. A western division with 9 or 10 members would have to include 1 or 2 Front Range schools, breaking up the close-knit foursome of Wyoming, Colorado State, Air Force and New Mexico. And as we all know from our realignment history, dissent over a proposed divisional structure separating members of that bloc is what triggered the MWC's breakaway from the WAC.