(09-05-2016 02:19 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(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.

The AAC does want MAC schools without a great tv market or top notch academics(NILL or Toledo).Again its Rice,UMASS ,Old Dominion and Charlotte.Nor an a CUSA school like SMISS.

I think it's UTEP and UTSA, same system, UTSA is an up and comer, UTEP is an old friend.

Rice and UMass to the AAC. (possible ODU over UMass)

Cincy and Houston to the B12

JMU to CUSA. If they filled all the way back up then add Georgia St., Arkansas St.

SBC Only expands if CUSA goes back to 14 w/ EKU and Missouri St. (NMSU only if one of those two decline)

(09-04-2016 11:38 PM)bullet 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.

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.

I'm giving the 28 team conglomerate NIU, Toledo, USM, Rice and UTEP. USM and Rice strips out quite a lot from CUSA's southern base.

NIU is too important in my opinion to leave out. Toledo is a good rival for them and has tickets in the 60-70 dollar range for football, double the pricing of most CUSA teams. With Cincinnati that makes 3 Midwestern FB schools.

-3 in the Midwest (NIU, Toledo, UC)
-3 in the Northeast (UConn, Temple, Navy)
-3 in the Southeast (ECU, UCF, USF)
-4 in the Southcentral (Tulsa, Memphis, Tulane, USM)
-3 in Texas (SMU, Rice, UTEP)
-4 in the Frontrange (Wyoming, CSU, AFA, New Mexico)
-4 in the Intermountain (Utah St, Boise St, Nevada, UNLV)
-3 in California (San Jose, Fresno, SDSU)
+Hawaii

I think that's a pretty good distribution. The numbers are little high in the West but not too bad. 7 team divisions where on an 8 game schedule there is 1 home/1 away game for each.

28 makes for plenty of inventory, timeslots ect. A lot to work with here. Almost a lock for the access bowl hunt with the depth.

(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?

Failed isn't the best word. Not worth it at the time. Two major changes: 1. C-USA TV numbers were very bad. This will make the exit fee more manageable and worth the trouble in the eyes of some schools. 2. BYU and the Big 12 may have some members seeing the dream of a BYU return as less likely.

Interest was there but wasn't enough to move the needle. It appears the metrics may have changed.

The AAC does not need any hook up with the MWC. If it decides to raid MWC fine otherwise, waste of time and effort.

(09-05-2016 08:41 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  The AAC does not need any hook up with the MWC. If it decides to raid MWC fine otherwise, waste of time and effort.

A depleted AAC raiding the MWC is not happening. Not enough difference in quality to offset the exit fees. Too much additional travel and is logistically a nightmare.

The 28 team coast-2-coast pitched to Fox or NBC is the only way I see the TV money going up, maybe to 2.5 million per school. The package could include some non-conference games between the AAC-MWC in FB/BB.

Why would they pay MWC/AAC more together than separate? The ratings are in East, not west. AAC will not lose more than 2. If AAC loses 1 you add one, lose 2 stand pat for a while. If AAC loses one and adds one, I see more than 2.5 mil on next deal.

(09-05-2016 08:57 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Why would they pay MWC/AAC more together than separate? The ratings are in East, not west. AAC will not lose more than 2. If AAC loses 1 you add one, lose 2 stand pat for a while. If AAC loses one and adds one, I see more than 2.5 mil on next deal.

Because of inventory and the buyer gets to work with 5 timezones. Tons of flexibility for scheduling game.

If the B12 expands, even only by 1 AAC school it could be a pretext for ESPN not giving the AAC anything since they have to pay so much more to the B12 and will need to give them more inventory slots.

Houston has an amazing 2016 where they run the table and the B12 adds them it will look like they've grabbed all the value out of the AAC.

If CUSA does lose UTEP, UTSA, and Rice, then I guess it would seem that NM St has no chance of being added. North Texas might be content with Louisiana Tech being the closest team.

If they did add JMU, that would actually work out as a bunch of reasonable pairs:
NT - LT
SM - UAB
FAU - FIU
W KY - MTSU
Marshall - Charlotte
ODU - JMU

MWC should add Idaho, NM State and UTEP and be done with it. Just an opinion.

(09-05-2016 09:10 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(09-05-2016 08:57 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Why would they pay MWC/AAC more together than separate? The ratings are in East, not west. AAC will not lose more than 2. If AAC loses 1 you add one, lose 2 stand pat for a while. If AAC loses one and adds one, I see more than 2.5 mil on next deal.

Because of inventory and the buyer gets to work with 5 timezones. Tons of flexibility for scheduling game.

If the B12 expands, even only by 1 AAC school it could be a pretext for ESPN not giving the AAC anything since they have to pay so much more to the B12 and will need to give them more inventory slots.

Houston has an amazing 2016 where they run the table and the B12 adds them it will look like they've grabbed all the value out of the AAC.

The AAC is made up of large budget (for G5's) schools, mostly in large markets, boasting the highest average G5 attendance, with solid multi-bid basketball, and good academics (all but one are USNWP top 200 schools). Plenty of value left after any raid to rebuild with.

I do think the post-raid value is MUCH higher with a semi-merger with 5-7 top MW schools than it is with a simple reload using the top CUSA/MAC/SB schools. I just think the "semi MW/AAC merger" creates a unique national "best of the rest" conference that has an opportunity to reset the media valuation model for a group of G5 schools.

(09-05-2016 12:19 PM)luvyosef Wrote:  MWC should add Idaho, NM State and UTEP and be done with it. Just an opinion.

Much better to add some Big Sky FCS schools than Idaho. Idaho doesn't have the FBS facilities like the Montana's, UC-Davis, Cal Poly and soon to be Portland St.

(09-05-2016 08:57 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Why would they pay MWC/AAC more together than separate? The ratings are in East, not west. AAC will not lose more than 2. If AAC loses 1 you add one, lose 2 stand pat for a while. If AAC loses one and adds one, I see more than 2.5 mil on next deal.

Some of the west coast ratings are better than some east coast.

Boise State, Fresno State and UNLV have drawn a large viewership when they play on ESPN.

New Mexico, Air Force, UTEP, SMU, Rice, Houston, Montana and North Dakota State in the central.

Toledo, Cincinnati, Northern Illinois, Bowling Green, Central Michigan and Western Michigan in the midwest do draw.

Arkansas State, La. Tech, La.-Monroe at times, Memphis, Southern Miss., Middle Tennessee State and Western Kentucky have been or are growing in viewership.

Appalachian State, Georgia Southern, Marshall, UMass and Old Dominion are hidden gems to pull of large viewership in the future if they keep winning.

Some FCS schools that are gems that needs to be FBS to draw viewers.
Eastern Washington, Portland State, Montana, Montana State, North Dakota State, South Dakota State, Wichita State (if they add football), Jacksonville State, Richmond, Northern Iowa, Youngstown State, James Madison, Delaware, Towson, Stony Brook, Fordham, Albany, William & Mary, Villanova and some others who have upset FBS schools. Yes, some FCS schools are pulling in better ratings than some AAC and MWC schools.

(09-05-2016 01:38 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(09-05-2016 08:57 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Why would they pay MWC/AAC more together than separate? The ratings are in East, not west. AAC will not lose more than 2. If AAC loses 1 you add one, lose 2 stand pat for a while. If AAC loses one and adds one, I see more than 2.5 mil on next deal.

Some of the west coast ratings are better than some east coast.

Boise State, Fresno State and UNLV have drawn a large viewership when they play on ESPN.

New Mexico, Air Force, UTEP, SMU, Rice, Houston, Montana and North Dakota State in the central.

Toledo, Cincinnati, Northern Illinois, Bowling Green, Central Michigan and Western Michigan in the midwest do draw.

Arkansas State, La. Tech, La.-Monroe at times, Memphis, Southern Miss., Middle Tennessee State and Western Kentucky have been or are growing in viewership.

Appalachian State, Georgia Southern, Marshall, UMass and Old Dominion are hidden gems to pull of large viewership in the future if they keep winning.

Some FCS schools that are gems that needs to be FBS to draw viewers.
Eastern Washington, Portland State, Montana, Montana State, North Dakota State, South Dakota State, Wichita State (if they add football), Jacksonville State, Richmond, Northern Iowa, Youngstown State, James Madison, Delaware, Towson, Stony Brook, Fordham, Albany, William & Mary, Villanova and some others who have upset FBS schools. Yes, some FCS schools are pulling in better ratings than some AAC and MWC schools.

The only schools that are ready for the MWC are UTEP,North Texas State and Rice are ready for the MWC.

Clearly the best schools for the AAC are UMASS,Old Dominion and UNC Charlotte.

Cinn and Memphis are clearly superior to the others.

(09-05-2016 08:22 AM)WTXOwl Wrote:  

(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?

Failed isn't the best word. Not worth it at the time. Two major changes: 1. C-USA TV numbers were very bad. This will make the exit fee more manageable and worth the trouble in the eyes of some schools. 2. BYU and the Big 12 may have some members seeing the dream of a BYU return as less likely.

Interest was there but wasn't enough to move the needle. It appears the metrics may have changed.

Sure, "not worth it" is more suitable, but neither of those reasons make adding the two schools more worthwhile for the MWC. Exit fees won't stop either UTEP or Rice, and the conference could already be enjoying some sort of BYU relationship if the conference gave the Cougs what they wanted when they got football independence (ollies and a partial MWC football association).

When it comes to BYU, the MWC has got to be hoping for one of two things: BYU getting snubbed and/or MWC losing a front range member. BYU's rejection to a major may give the conference enough leverage to bring the two sides back to the table, and losing one of the front range members (looking at you two, CSU and Air Force) weakens the bloc to the others who are fine with the concessions it may take to regain BYU. Everybody knows BYU will bring more money back to all in that conference, but getting over that initial slight and "act of sabotage" is still (and rightfully) a tough pill to swallow.

Of course, if the MWC wanted the door permanently shut on the BYU topic, maybe they should have stopped taking on WAC members, who were fine with BYU's plans. USU and SJSU...hope it was worth it, MWC.

I wish I was as confident of an AAC invite for the Owls as some of you are, LOL.

Rice would definitely love to be in a division with Tulane, SMU, Tulsa, and Navy, but if that doesn't pan out, we would absolutely take a Mountain West invite.

(09-05-2016 02:27 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I wish I was as confident of an AAC invite for the Owls as some of you are, LOL.

Rice would definitely love to be in a division with Tulane, SMU, Tulsa, and Navy, but if that doesn't pan out, we would absolutely take a Mountain West invite.

That would be as close to the old "Magnolia League" idea as is currently possible.

(09-05-2016 02:04 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  When it comes to BYU, the MWC has got to be hoping for one of two things: BYU getting snubbed and/or MWC losing a front range member. BYU's rejection to a major may give the conference enough leverage to bring the two sides back to the table, and losing one of the front range members (looking at you two, CSU and Air Force) weakens the bloc to the others who are fine with the concessions it may take to regain BYU. Everybody knows BYU will bring more money back to all in that conference, but getting over that initial slight and "act of sabotage" is still (and rightfully) a tough pill to swallow.

Of course, if the MWC wanted the door permanently shut on the BYU topic, maybe they should have stopped taking on WAC members, who were fine with BYU's plans. USU and SJSU...hope it was worth it, MWC.

If BYU is headed to a football and conference and if the MWC loses a Front Range school, BYU is way more likely to be in that other conference with the Front Range school than back in the MWC, whether that's the Big 12, AAC or otherwise.

(09-05-2016 01:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-05-2016 09:10 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(09-05-2016 08:57 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  Why would they pay MWC/AAC more together than separate? The ratings are in East, not west. AAC will not lose more than 2. If AAC loses 1 you add one, lose 2 stand pat for a while. If AAC loses one and adds one, I see more than 2.5 mil on next deal.

Because of inventory and the buyer gets to work with 5 timezones. Tons of flexibility for scheduling game.

If the B12 expands, even only by 1 AAC school it could be a pretext for ESPN not giving the AAC anything since they have to pay so much more to the B12 and will need to give them more inventory slots.

Houston has an amazing 2016 where they run the table and the B12 adds them it will look like they've grabbed all the value out of the AAC.

The AAC is made up of large budget (for G5's) schools, mostly in large markets, boasting the highest average G5 attendance, with solid multi-bid basketball, and good academics (all but one are USNWP top 200 schools). Plenty of value left after any raid to rebuild with.

I do think the post-raid value is MUCH higher with a semi-merger with 5-7 top MW schools than it is with a simple reload using the top CUSA/MAC/SB schools. I just think the "semi MW/AAC merger" creates a unique national "best of the rest" conference that has an opportunity to reset the media valuation model for a group of G5 schools.

Why split the CFP money 18/20 ways like you are suggesting when the MWC and AAC can keep their separate conferences?

If the MWC was able to make a Texas expansion and effectively meet the AAC halfway geographically the two conferences then have a nice case for coast-2-coast coverage. This is my point.

The idea that 5 MWC schools will agree to put their student athletes in peril, pay 10 million in exit fees ect. to join the AAC is farfetched.

Just as farfetched as your idea for VCU to leave the A10, which is multibid and playing its rivals Richmond, George Mason and George Washington to join the AAC with greatly increased travel cost and none of the TV money since it goes to the basketball schools.

You think too much about high end attendance or post season appearances as a magic value driver. But what the networks are looking at is overall competitiveness and inventory.

AAC is thought of as a tweener so its getting 1.8 mil per school and decent coverage on ESPN. Coverage which goes to the B12 as teams go there.

MWC has the benefit of being the second FBS conference in the west and unique time slots.

If they become mini P5 conferences with 14-16 schools that would help on the inventory side while the MAC, CUSA, SBC stay in the 10-12 range to max the per school payout.

(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.

Thank you for your response. I know my view is skewed by my Maroon and Gold glasses, but

Facilities:
While UTSA rents the Alamodome 20 minutes from campus, Texas State has better basketball, baseball, and track facilities than UTSA as well as an 33,000 person oncampus stadium.

Athletic Spending:
Texas State has a higher athletic budget than UTSA or UNT

Student Body:
Texas State has more students than UTSA

Academics:
Both are deemed Emerging Research Institutions by the Texas Legislature.-- PUSH
Texas State has a higher endowment

Location:
UTSA is in San Antonio and gets media coverage by the SA media. Texas State is 25 miles from downtown Austin and 45 minutes from San Antonio. The two metro areas are growing together we are at the epicenter of that.

We are also served by both airports.

I just hate to not see us included. I feel like the national media is used to looking at CUSA and not the Belt. If we were in CUSA and they were in the Sun Belt, I feel like we would be lumped in the conversation with UTEP, UNT, and Rice. Really though, all of that would be a moot point if we just took care of business on the field or on the court. Athletic success would draw positive to our cause and our "negative" location would be seen as a strength since we would get coverage in both media markets.

I'm just glad the season is here. Coach Withers has me pumped.