Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Would C-USA be better off splitting up?
Author Message
MWC Tex Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,397
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 106
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #31
RE: Would C-USA be better off splitting up?
(03-18-2017 01:21 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  Sun Belt teams are really happy with our conference as it is so CUSA would have to look to independents like UMass and NMSU if they want to expand. No Sun Belt teams are leaving for CUSA unless they find a way to add significantly more revenues.

Sent from my B3-A20 using CSNbbs mobile app
I'm sure Texas St would.
03-18-2017 04:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MWC Tex Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,397
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation: 106
I Root For: MW
Location: TX
Post: #32
RE: Would C-USA be better off splitting up?
(03-18-2017 12:59 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 11:31 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 09:49 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Most on this board would say yes to the idea of a CUSA split.

There are some problems which I am going to list:

1) CFP contract is for CUSA and not any other new conference that will be formed. This can be adjusted potentially but that is a risk of splitting. The contract is good yet for 9 more seasons so its going to be a while.

2) By the end of the B12 TV deal there may be some realignment. This realignment could give opportunities for schools like SoMiss, WKU and ODU to find a space in the AAC. Do you bother with splitting if the end game is to jump?

3) Where is the value in CUSA anyways? Is there value in creating a better basketball grouping or a better football grouping? I feel like it makes sense to focus on basketball and take in only 1 of the new Florida schools. Perhaps bring in Georgia State because of the media market and basketball.

Marshall
Old Dominion
Western Ky
Middle Tenn
Charlotte
Georgia State
UAB
Florida International

8 team conference that requires a smaller revenue split from the NCAA and CFP.

The SBC would be down to 9 and CUSA down to 6. Nobody in the SBC is going to move to CUSA at that point. SBC could instead invite FAU, SoMiss and UTSA into their conference. SBC has a good football brand these days.

That would leave UTEP, Rice and LaTech as independents. They can play with themselves, New Mexico State and BYU as a group of western independents.

Might be better in the short run to add 2 to each side of CUSA. The conference would then divide into divisions for all sports and would only play schools from the other divisions in championship games. That's basically the same as splitting--but it preserves all the autobids. You could even allow each division to shop it's 2nd tier deal separatelly. For Instance, the West Tier2 rights might be an excellent fit for Fox Sports SW. It might be easier for each division to get regional coverage that way.

Effectively, it's would be 2 conferences sharing one headquarters and a tv deal (to whatever degree that want to negotiate together).

That's the only way. That can't split the conference into two conferences and get a 2nd NCAA auto bid. That's a fact. They also can't split in two and add one of the conferences into the CFP contract, another fact. 2, 8 school divisions will save them money on travel. They don't get any tv money anyway. CUSA made a decision to add all those start up schools. No one forced them too. A lot of us thought they were making a terrible decision then, but they made their bed. Now CUSA can only try to make the most out of a very bad situation. Unless they are able to kick 4 to 6 schools out? Never seen that done, but there's the 2 schools in Florida that the others don't seem to want at all when I read the CUSA boards.
Cheers!

At first my thinking was to merge with the WAC. But then even diluting with 16 teams from the cfp money ($650k each) is still better than getting 0.
Add 2 west to get 2 pretty regional divisions.
(This post was last modified: 03-18-2017 05:03 PM by MWC Tex.)
03-18-2017 05:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NoDak Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,150
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 77
I Root For: UND
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Would C-USA be better off splitting up?
(03-18-2017 12:59 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 11:31 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 09:49 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Most on this board would say yes to the idea of a CUSA split.

There are some problems which I am going to list:

1) CFP contract is for CUSA and not any other new conference that will be formed. This can be adjusted potentially but that is a risk of splitting. The contract is good yet for 9 more seasons so its going to be a while.

2) By the end of the B12 TV deal there may be some realignment. This realignment could give opportunities for schools like SoMiss, WKU and ODU to find a space in the AAC. Do you bother with splitting if the end game is to jump?

3) Where is the value in CUSA anyways? Is there value in creating a better basketball grouping or a better football grouping? I feel like it makes sense to focus on basketball and take in only 1 of the new Florida schools. Perhaps bring in Georgia State because of the media market and basketball.

Marshall
Old Dominion
Western Ky
Middle Tenn
Charlotte
Georgia State
UAB
Florida International

8 team conference that requires a smaller revenue split from the NCAA and CFP.

The SBC would be down to 9 and CUSA down to 6. Nobody in the SBC is going to move to CUSA at that point. SBC could instead invite FAU, SoMiss and UTSA into their conference. SBC has a good football brand these days.

That would leave UTEP, Rice and LaTech as independents. They can play with themselves, New Mexico State and BYU as a group of western independents.

Might be better in the short run to add 2 to each side of CUSA. The conference would then divide into divisions for all sports and would only play schools from the other divisions in championship games. That's basically the same as splitting--but it preserves all the autobids. You could even allow each division to shop it's 2nd tier deal separatelly. For Instance, the West Tier2 rights might be an excellent fit for Fox Sports SW. It might be easier for each division to get regional coverage that way.

Effectively, it's would be 2 conferences sharing one headquarters and a tv deal (to whatever degree that want to negotiate together).

That's the only way. That can't split the conference into two conferences and get a 2nd NCAA auto bid. That's a fact. They also can't split in two and add one of the conferences into the CFP contract, another fact. 2, 8 school divisions will save them money on travel. They don't get any tv money anyway. CUSA made a decision to add all those start up schools. No one forced them too. A lot of us thought they were making a terrible decision then, but they made their bed. Now CUSA can only try to make the most out of a very bad situation. Unless they are able to kick 4 to 6 schools out? Never seen that done, but there's the 2 schools in Florida that the others don't seem to want at all when I read the CUSA boards.
Cheers!

If seven schools want to break off and they have been together eight years, the NCAA has no choice but to grant them conference status. A new conference definition is still on the books and continuity is a part of it. If they do it before the new CFP negotiations, they can be included in that too. The NCAA doesn't forbid splits, but doesn't spell out how to split either, but the new conference rules spell it out.

CUSA does not qualify now, because schools have not been together long enough, but in time the eastern or western halves would qualify to split and get their own autobid.

JMU, Stony Brook, Mo St are waiting in the wings IMHO.
(This post was last modified: 03-18-2017 06:13 PM by NoDak.)
03-18-2017 05:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Old Blue Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,067
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 29
I Root For: ODU
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Would C-USA be better off splitting up?
How about this; C-USA East, ODU, Charlotte, Marshall, MTSU, WKU, FAU and FIU add Umass, has to be for all sports. They can be enticed because they need a home for football.

C-USA West; So. Miss, UAB, La Tech, UTEP, UTSA, Rice and North Texas add Wichita State, entice them by offering them an immediate FBS home for their football team.

Both sides improve basketball and save money on travel.
03-18-2017 05:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 8,437
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 261
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #35
RE: Would C-USA be better off splitting up?
(03-18-2017 05:12 PM)NoDak Wrote:  If seven schools want to break off and they have been together eight years, the NCAA has no choice but to grant them conference status.

No, the NCAA does have a choice. They can tell them to follow the rules in the manual and wait 8 years for their conference to qualify for an autobid.

Quote: A new conference definition is still on the books and continuity is a part of it.

Got a source for that? I looked through the 2015-16 manual, and the 7-schools-for-8-years rule isn't in it. Here's the thread where I proved you wrong. Here's the 2016-17 manual. Please back up what you're saying, or stop saying it.

Continuity no longer has anything to do with schools playing together in a conference. It has to do with a conference sponsoring a sport continuously.

EDIT: I'm trying to be less of a jerk on the internet.
(This post was last modified: 03-18-2017 08:00 PM by johnbragg.)
03-18-2017 07:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,946
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 102
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #36
RE: Would C-USA be better off splitting up?
(03-18-2017 03:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Then explain why the new Big East, anchored by the Catholic 7, received autobids.
Because they were granted a waiver? That's the counter claim I see in the humongo thread about it, and it makes more sense than any effort to read the rule to say they were entitled to an autobid.

Pragmatically, they were granted a waiver because they held a conference TV contract which was on par with the other power BBall conferences. The pro forma arguments would have been that their freedom to leave the old Big East was a by law written for the old continuity rules, and it would not be fair to penalize the C7 for the rule change that was made to save the WAC.

That version of events then makes the plain reading of the rule the actual meaning of the rule, and whichever one of the "seven" did not inherit the CUSA organization would have to "sponsor" the sport continuously to get their autobid back, or else get a waiver (which for that conference would be far less likely, as neither the plausible de facto nor the formal de jure justifications for the C7 waiver would be a precedent for this split).

And that is also the most reasonable interpretation given that the NCAA doesn't want single-bid conferences to engage in a dance of re-arranging themselves to increase the number of autobids and reduce the number of at-large bids in the tourney. They have plenty of schools auditioning for the part of Cinderella each year ... they don't really need any more.
(This post was last modified: 03-18-2017 08:20 PM by BruceMcF.)
03-18-2017 07:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 12,241
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 355
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #37
RE: Would C-USA be better off splitting up?
(03-18-2017 07:36 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 03:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Then explain why the new Big East, anchored by the Catholic 7, received autobids.
Because they were granted a waiver? That's the counter claim I see in the humongo thread about it, and it makes more sense than any effort to read the rule to say they were entitled to an autobid.

Pragmatically, they were granted a waiver because they held a conference TV contract which was on par with the other power BBall conferences. The pro forma arguments would have been that their freedom to leave the old Big East was a by law written for the old continuity rules, and it would not be fair to penalize the C7 for the rule change that was made to save the WAC.

That version of events then makes the plain reading of the rule the actual meaning of the rule, and whichever one of the "seven" did not inherit the CUSA organization would have to "sponsor" the sport continuously to get their autobid back, or else get a waiver (which for that conference would be far less likely, as neither the plausible de facto nor the formal de jure justifications for the C7 waiver would be a precedent for this split).

Really, it's:

Pragmatically, they were granted a waiver because (unlike any rando grouping of other schools proposed in one or more of the dozens of threads on this subject) the "new Big East" includes several schools that don't suck at men's basketball.

Because of that, in almost every season there will be two or more conference members who would get at-large bids to the NCAAs, meaning that giving one of those Big East teams an autobid, when they would have received an at-large bid anyway, doesn't steal an at-large bid away from the rest of the field.

In contrast, giving a new conference of RPI-150-plus teams an autobid would always rob the rest of the field of an at-large opportunity.
03-18-2017 08:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NoDak Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,150
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 77
I Root For: UND
Location:
Post: #38
RE: Would C-USA be better off splitting up?
(03-18-2017 07:04 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 05:12 PM)NoDak Wrote:  If seven schools want to break off and they have been together eight years, the NCAA has no choice but to grant them conference status.

No, the NCAA does have a choice. They can tell them to follow the rules in the manual and wait 8 years for their conference to qualify for an autobid.

Quote: A new conference definition is still on the books and continuity is a part of it.

Got a source for that? I looked through the 2015-16 manual, and the 7-schools-for-8-years rule isn't in it. Here's the thread where I proved you wrong. Here's the 2016-17 manual. Please back up what you're saying, or stop saying it.

Continuity no longer has anything to do with schools playing together in a conference. It has to do with a conference sponsoring a sport continuously.

EDIT: I'm trying to be less of a jerk on the internet.

20.02.5.4

Continuity is defined as eight years with seven teams for a new conference. Proves you didnt read the whole thing but spout falsehoods based on one tiny part.
(This post was last modified: 03-18-2017 08:42 PM by NoDak.)
03-18-2017 08:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
johnbragg Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 8,437
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 261
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
Post: #39
RE: Would C-USA be better off splitting up?
(03-18-2017 08:05 PM)NoDak Wrote:  20.02.5.4

Continuity is defined as eight years with seven teams for a new conference. STFU as you know nothing but spout falsehoods.

Quote:20.02.5.4 Continuity. A multisport conference shall establish continuity. To establish continuity, a multisport conference must meet the requirements of Bylaw 20.02.5.1. In addition, the conference must meet the requirements of Bylaws 20.02.5.2 and 20.02.5.3 for a period of eight consecutive years. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

20.02.5.1 basically says 'have seven Division I members'.
20.02.5.2 talks about what sports a conference must sponsor (12 sports, 6 mens' 6 womens, etc)
20.02.5.3 is about scheduling requirements for conference sports.

Continuity is a property of the conference, not of the schools that make up the conference.
03-18-2017 08:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NoDak Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,150
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 77
I Root For: UND
Location:
Post: #40
RE: Would C-USA be better off splitting up?
(03-18-2017 08:22 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  
(03-18-2017 08:05 PM)NoDak Wrote:  20.02.5.4

Continuity is defined as eight years with seven teams for a new conference. STFU as you know nothing but spout falsehoods.

Quote:20.02.5.4 Continuity. A multisport conference shall establish continuity. To establish continuity, a multisport conference must meet the requirements of Bylaw 20.02.5.1. In addition, the conference must meet the requirements of Bylaws 20.02.5.2 and 20.02.5.3 for a period of eight consecutive years. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

20.02.5.1 basically says 'have seven Division I members'.
20.02.5.2 talks about what sports a conference must sponsor (12 sports, 6 mens' 6 womens, etc)
20.02.5.3 is about scheduling requirements for conference sports.

Continuity is a property of the conference, not of the schools that make up the conference.

Once a conference is officially autobid, continuity doesn't matter. So agree with that, and always did when the NCAA changed their rules again earlier in this decade.
03-18-2017 08:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 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.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.