(06-16-2017 07:59 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-14-2017 09:26 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  You can't do much when there is raiding of others going on above you. What was the WAC supposed to do? They only, potentially, had 5 teams to form a conference and only two west of the Great Plains. The Montanas weren't interested nor was much of the Big Sky, some of whom didn't have the facilities. He didn't have much of an option but to let it die.

You have to give him a ton of credit. The Sun Belt is clearly better than C-USA right now, especially in football.

He was part of the problem when the MWC schools left the WAC. Too many Texas schools killed the WAC the first time around. They should have grabbed just TCU and left the rest to sink to nothing.

I actually agree with you David. Had the old WAC simply added TCU and UNLV and called it a day they would have eventually become a BCS conference I've always thought.

(06-16-2017 08:06 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 10:06 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(06-15-2017 09:26 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-14-2017 07:21 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(06-14-2017 03:27 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I'm not reading this entire thread but EMU actually does well at the other sports not counting football. It's really just football that has been the issue. And they did ok last year.

Which is why I suggested they drop to FCS. Still D-I...

The MAC this past season has picked up $32 million from ESPN. $10 million from the TV deal and $22 million from the CFP.

EMU is getting that ESPN money plus located very close to the geographic center of the MAC. No bus ride further than 5 hours in the MAC.

EMU would then be looking at a loss of $2.5 million in TV revenue from ESPN and another $1 million more in travel for its FCS team. Eastern's coach makes around $400k so its not like there is a hefty salary to cut by moving down.

My suggestion to force schools down is to try to "Idaho" them. Form new conferences and exclude the weaker once who then without ESPN money.

I could see where it could make sense for the MWC and CUSA to get to 16 and put the SBC out of business.

MWC (UTEP, Rice, UTSA, UNT)
CUSA (TxSt, Louisiana, AState, Georgia St, GaSo, App St)

SBC with ULM, USA, Troy, Coastal ect...wouldn't be able to rebuild as a G conference.

This could happen to the MAC if there became a P8.

-16 team AAC (champ to CFP Outback)
-16 team MWC (champ to CFP Las Vegas)
-16 team best of the rest conference. (champ to CFP Floater)

I can seriously see something like this to gain a conference autobid.

Those left out would have a huge recruiting disadvantage and have to consider a move down.

Here is the problem with that kill the Sunbelt proposal--even with being down th 4 football schools the Sunbelt could still rebuild:

Liberty
NMSU
EKU
Jacksonville St
a couple Texas schools from the Southland/UTRGV start up

I don't see a lot of incentive for the MWC to make that giant expansion into Texas because their base CFP payment would remain the same and those 4 wouldn't boost the overall level of play. Maybe they take 2--but not 4.

Even if they did there is no guarantee that C-USA would reload. They may find that a leaner 10 team league better suits them and increases everyone's share of CFP money.

They might look at UTEP, UTSA, Texas State and West Texas A&M if they decide to move up to D1. Those 4 fit the MWC footprint. Rice seems to be a sticking point because they are far east Texas and be a much further travel. Hawaii may not want to play Rice, and would say no.

What does rather MWC gain by adding a bunch of crappy schools from Texas, that is ridiculous and will never happen.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(06-15-2017 09:20 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  If it meant that much, there's no way West Virginia could be in the Big 12. Yeah, they have more money but still they have to travel half the country for each sport.

The difference between Big XII membership and membership in a G5 conference is roughly $18 million.
West Virginia can make a big dent in charter bills with $18 million.
If West Virginia had a P5 option that paid equal dollars to Big XII that was more regional, I suspect they'd go there.

But here's the kicker. In the Sun Belt, Idaho's SHORTEST conference trip is longer than West Virginia's LONGEST conference trip.

(06-16-2017 05:41 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Since 1968, New Mexico State has just 4 winning seasons but that's not the worst part...their best season in that time span is just 7-5. Sounds like it's time for them to throw in the towel. They don't even have a conference anymore.

NMSU has something Idaho does not. Two schools within less than 250 miles willing to play home/home in football. They have one of those at home every year through 2028.

There are three schools within 300 miles of Idaho. Boise State will not play them. Washington hasn't played them since 2009 and apparently has no interest in traveling to Moscow.

Washington State hasn't played since 2013 though they used to play regularly but they are hampered by the NCAA's changes to neutral site games, Idaho simply cannot do the past deal of counting a game at Washington State unless they play enough games there to count it as a home site (ie. half their home games).

(06-16-2017 07:59 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-14-2017 09:26 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  You can't do much when there is raiding of others going on above you. What was the WAC supposed to do? They only, potentially, had 5 teams to form a conference and only two west of the Great Plains. The Montanas weren't interested nor was much of the Big Sky, some of whom didn't have the facilities. He didn't have much of an option but to let it die.

You have to give him a ton of credit. The Sun Belt is clearly better than C-USA right now, especially in football.

He was part of the problem when the MWC schools left the WAC. Too many Texas schools killed the WAC the first time around. They should have grabbed just TCU and left the rest to sink to nothing.

He was commissioner of the MAC when the WAC did the 6 team expansion. Think we can give him a pass on that decision.

(06-16-2017 07:59 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-14-2017 09:26 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  You can't do much when there is raiding of others going on above you. What was the WAC supposed to do? They only, potentially, had 5 teams to form a conference and only two west of the Great Plains. The Montanas weren't interested nor was much of the Big Sky, some of whom didn't have the facilities. He didn't have much of an option but to let it die.

You have to give him a ton of credit. The Sun Belt is clearly better than C-USA right now, especially in football.

He was part of the problem when the MWC schools left the WAC. Too many Texas schools killed the WAC the first time around. They should have grabbed just TCU and left the rest to sink to nothing.

TCU was a joke no better than Rice when the SWC broke up. They went 1-10 as recently as 1997.

The WAC's heart was in the right place. Their idea was to create a 16-team super conference emphasizing major markets and the best western programs not in the Pac-10. They were ahead of his time in that regard, as that is a typical way conferences try to attract TV money.

Unfortunately, all those private schools had little fanfare or not enough and combined with the way the scheduling format broke up rivalries, the conference fractured in half. What they should have done was stop at 12. Add UNLV and Fresno State and be done with it. That would be a solid conference, one with a likely BCS autobid. Heck, they would have been one without those two.

(06-16-2017 10:59 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(06-16-2017 07:59 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-14-2017 09:26 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  You can't do much when there is raiding of others going on above you. What was the WAC supposed to do? They only, potentially, had 5 teams to form a conference and only two west of the Great Plains. The Montanas weren't interested nor was much of the Big Sky, some of whom didn't have the facilities. He didn't have much of an option but to let it die.

You have to give him a ton of credit. The Sun Belt is clearly better than C-USA right now, especially in football.

He was part of the problem when the MWC schools left the WAC. Too many Texas schools killed the WAC the first time around. They should have grabbed just TCU and left the rest to sink to nothing.

TCU was a joke no better than Rice when the SWC broke up. They went 1-10 as recently as 1997.

The WAC's heart was in the right place. Their idea was to create a 16-team super conference emphasizing major markets and the best western programs not in the Pac-10. They was ahead of his time in that regard, as that is a typical way conferences try to attract TV money.

Unfortunately, all those private schools had little fanfare or not enough and combined with the way the scheduling format broke up rivalries, the conference fractured in half. What they should have done was stop at 12. Add UNLV and Fresno State and be done with it. That would be a solid conference, one with a likely BCS autobid. Heck, they would have been one without those two.

They would have had Boise sooner in the conference if Utah had not insisted on denying them entry. If the Utes weren't such jerks they would have had TCU, BYU, Boise and Utah in addition to other good schools and the MW would have been a power conference.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(06-16-2017 11:14 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  

(06-16-2017 10:59 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(06-16-2017 07:59 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(06-14-2017 09:26 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  You can't do much when there is raiding of others going on above you. What was the WAC supposed to do? They only, potentially, had 5 teams to form a conference and only two west of the Great Plains. The Montanas weren't interested nor was much of the Big Sky, some of whom didn't have the facilities. He didn't have much of an option but to let it die.

You have to give him a ton of credit. The Sun Belt is clearly better than C-USA right now, especially in football.

He was part of the problem when the MWC schools left the WAC. Too many Texas schools killed the WAC the first time around. They should have grabbed just TCU and left the rest to sink to nothing.

TCU was a joke no better than Rice when the SWC broke up. They went 1-10 as recently as 1997.

The WAC's heart was in the right place. Their idea was to create a 16-team super conference emphasizing major markets and the best western programs not in the Pac-10. They was ahead of his time in that regard, as that is a typical way conferences try to attract TV money.

Unfortunately, all those private schools had little fanfare or not enough and combined with the way the scheduling format broke up rivalries, the conference fractured in half. What they should have done was stop at 12. Add UNLV and Fresno State and be done with it. That would be a solid conference, one with a likely BCS autobid. Heck, they would have been one without those two.

They would have had Boise sooner in the conference if Utah had not insisted on denying them entry. If the Utes weren't such jerks they would have had TCU, BYU, Boise and Utah in addition to other good schools and the MW would have been a power conference.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

How do you know that Wyoming & BYU & AFA didn't deny Boise entry?

Boise was such a quick up and comer. They basically didn't exist as recently as 2000. That said, the MWC was trying to become a premiere conference. I know they feared over expanding like the old WAC but they had a chance to be considered a major conference. Add Boise and maybe a UTEP and Fresno I think that tips the scales. Even without the last two, they were knocking on the door.

UNR and Hawaii have been tough as well which MWC could have added them as well, and boom. MWC could be a very tough conference with Boise, TCU, Air Force, BYU, Wyoming, UNR, Fresno State and Hawaii.

(06-16-2017 09:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-16-2017 05:41 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Since 1968, New Mexico State has just 4 winning seasons but that's not the worst part...their best season in that time span is just 7-5. Sounds like it's time for them to throw in the towel. They don't even have a conference anymore.

NMSU has something Idaho does not. Two schools within less than 250 miles willing to play home/home in football. They have one of those at home every year through 2028.

There are three schools within 300 miles of Idaho. Boise State will not play them. Washington hasn't played them since 2009 and apparently has no interest in traveling to Moscow.

Washington State hasn't played since 2013 though they used to play regularly but they are hampered by the NCAA's changes to neutral site games, Idaho simply cannot do the past deal of counting a game at Washington State unless they play enough games there to count it as a home site (ie. half their home games).

One correction -- we played both Washington and Washington State last year. Both schools, especially WSU, would play us fairly regularly. We'd never get Washington in Moscow but Washington State wouldn't be averse to giving us a home game. It just never makes financial sense with both schools in the same place and WSU's stadium being twice as big. Our AD viewed games with both schools as basically money games and there were other schools that paid more, so we didn't play either as often as we could have.

But your point is valid -- NMSU has a somewhat easier path to an indy FBS schedule than we do. They'd also have a more difficult time backsliding into FCS, since there isn't an FCS conference that makes any geographic sense for them.

What if the P5 said to the AAC we are thinking about creating 2 more CFP games but we'd like you a lot more if BYU and Colorado State were included.

BYU would help the P argument a lot with its 60,000 fans in the stands. Bring the the AAC attendance average up to 35,000 just by itself.

The the P decides on elevating the Outback Bowl and Las Vegas Bowl to CFP status. Both add big media markets and are played in NFL stadiums. AAC is a natural for the Outback but who is going to anchor the Las Vegas.

The P approaches the MWC and says we've got plans for a CFP bowl in Las Vegas but we'd like the MWC a lot more if it was 16 and had all of those large Texas schools (UTEP, UTSA, UNT, Texas St)...the MWC then expands to 16.

Both the AAC and MWC ties could go for $40 million, far less than what the bigger P's are making from the games. Then the question is what to do about the $90 million they've been throwing CUSA, SBC, MAC plus the access slot for the highest rated slot.

The answer.....tell CUSA if they go to 18 they can get a floater access slot with a $40 million payout. The $50 million left over then can be divided up by the remaining non-P universities.

CUSA to 18..

EAST Additions
Ohio-Solid attendance
Miami-Putting in some nice facilities and good rival.
App State-Developing a BCS buster killer instinct.
Georgia St-Atlanta market

West Additions
NIU-Orange Bowl appearance
WMU-Cotton Bowl appearance
Ark State-Good draw and revenues
Louisiana-37,000 seater has CUSA written on it.

CUSA would be in a position where its definitely more P worthy at 18 than the 8 MAC schools and 5 SBC's left behind (ULM, Troy, USA, GaSo, Coastal).

The leftovers split 50 million and have access for their best team if rated in the Top 12. That is a better deal than no access which UMass, Liberty, NMSU and Army have now. Top 12 rule would be independent of what AAC/MWC/CUSA do.

(06-17-2017 01:53 AM)LatahCounty Wrote:  

(06-16-2017 09:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-16-2017 05:41 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Since 1968, New Mexico State has just 4 winning seasons but that's not the worst part...their best season in that time span is just 7-5. Sounds like it's time for them to throw in the towel. They don't even have a conference anymore.

NMSU has something Idaho does not. Two schools within less than 250 miles willing to play home/home in football. They have one of those at home every year through 2028.

There are three schools within 300 miles of Idaho. Boise State will not play them. Washington hasn't played them since 2009 and apparently has no interest in traveling to Moscow.

Washington State hasn't played since 2013 though they used to play regularly but they are hampered by the NCAA's changes to neutral site games, Idaho simply cannot do the past deal of counting a game at Washington State unless they play enough games there to count it as a home site (ie. half their home games).

One correction -- we played both Washington and Washington State last year. Both schools, especially WSU, would play us fairly regularly. We'd never get Washington in Moscow but Washington State wouldn't be averse to giving us a home game. It just never makes financial sense with both schools in the same place and WSU's stadium being twice as big. Our AD viewed games with both schools as basically money games and there were other schools that paid more, so we didn't play either as often as we could have.

But your point is valid -- NMSU has a somewhat easier path to an indy FBS schedule than we do. They'd also have a more difficult time backsliding into FCS, since there isn't an FCS conference that makes any geographic sense for them.

They can't play in the Big Sky? I know distances are enormous out west but there still are teams relatively close by, such as Northern Arizona, Northern Colorado and to a lesser extent, Weber State and Idaho State.

(06-17-2017 01:14 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  UNR and Hawaii have been tough as well which MWC could have added them as well, and boom. MWC could be a very tough conference with Boise, TCU, Air Force, BYU, Wyoming, UNR, Fresno State and Hawaii.

Nevada plays in a smallish stadium in a small market. They weren't and to a degree still aren't big time.

Also, a significant reason the MWC split off was to avoid those long trips to Hawai'i.

As an independent, the amount NMSU gets from the College Football Playoff is comparable to the amount received by the entire Big Sky. By the time you would split the Big Sky's distribution 14 ways, that's a drop of more than $200,000 for NMSU.

The WAC and Big Sky are both one-bid leagues in basketball. Even if Chicago State survives long term, the WAC is splitting NCAA units 9 ways instead of 12 ways like the Big Sky would if NMSU joins. If Chicago State taps out, and since California Baptist isn't immediately eligible, the WAC could be splitting those monies 7 ways, so NMSU is losing at least $48,000 a year by moving to the Big Sky.

Big Sky travel in other sports would be bad as well, as it does not have the proximity to airports found in the WAC.

Meanwhile by staying in FBS, NMSU could schedule 3 guarantee games and potentially collect upwards of $3 Million while buying 1 FCS opponent at a fraction of that. UTEP and UNM will add one home game and one road game, so that's half of the schedule right there.

(06-17-2017 04:44 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(06-17-2017 01:14 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  UNR and Hawaii have been tough as well which MWC could have added them as well, and boom. MWC could be a very tough conference with Boise, TCU, Air Force, BYU, Wyoming, UNR, Fresno State and Hawaii.

Nevada plays in a smallish stadium in a small market. They weren't and to a degree still aren't big time.

Also, a significant reason the MWC split off was to avoid those long trips to Hawai'i.

Where did you hear that about Hawaii? The biggest reason why the MWC split off, from what I can remember was to preserve their old rivalries. None of the Texas schools received any invitations to join the MWC, formal or informal, except for 2 schools: UTEP, which had a good relationship with the MWC schools and TCU, which used that as a springboard to the Big 12. As for Nevada, Reno is the second biggest city in Nevada, and the second most popular city for Californians to gamble in. While it isn't big time in the sense that Georgia & Auburn & Oregon are, they actually match up well with most if not all of the schools in the MWC.

Trying to get this thread back on track, I think UMass, if they don't find a conference soon, will probably be the next school to drop back down, although I sincerely hope that they do find a conference, so that they don't have to do that. The one thing that Notre Dame, BYU, and Army have going for them is that they have a nationwide fan base and national appeal, not to mention pretty good sized athletic budgets too. UMass doesn't have either of those things, and therefore needs a conference. EMU & ULM are worth keeping an eye on as well.

I didn't say it was the only or even biggest reason. I said it was a significant reason.

(06-17-2017 08:45 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(06-17-2017 04:44 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(06-17-2017 01:14 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  UNR and Hawaii have been tough as well which MWC could have added them as well, and boom. MWC could be a very tough conference with Boise, TCU, Air Force, BYU, Wyoming, UNR, Fresno State and Hawaii.

Nevada plays in a smallish stadium in a small market. They weren't and to a degree still aren't big time.

Also, a significant reason the MWC split off was to avoid those long trips to Hawai'i.

Where did you hear that about Hawaii? The biggest reason why the MWC split off, from what I can remember was to preserve their old rivalries. None of the Texas schools received any invitations to join the MWC, formal or informal, except for 2 schools: UTEP, which had a good relationship with the MWC schools and TCU, which used that as a springboard to the Big 12. As for Nevada, Reno is the second biggest city in Nevada, and the second most popular city for Californians to gamble in. While it isn't big time in the sense that Georgia & Auburn & Oregon are, they actually match up well with most if not all of the schools in the MWC.

Nevada now is not so bad, Nevada a decade ago wasn't an MWC caliber program.

The split occurred for these reasons:

A. The conference was too big which meant

B. Many long time rivalries had been split up

C. There was too much deadweight at the bottom, which hurt the WAC as it tried to be seen as a major conference

D.. Many teams dreaded taking all their sports out to Hawai'i.

Trust me, if Hawai'i was so important, they never would have been left out.

(06-17-2017 09:37 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Trying to get this thread back on track, I think UMass, if they don't find a conference soon, will probably be the next school to drop back down, although I sincerely hope that they do find a conference, so that they don't have to do that. The one thing that Notre Dame, BYU, and Army have going for them is that they have a nationwide fan base and national appeal, not to mention pretty good sized athletic budgets too. UMass doesn't have either of those things, and therefore needs a conference. EMU & ULM are worth keeping an eye on as well.

EMU & ULM have a similar situation in they are both in solid conference situations but both spend a large portion on their athletic budgets relative to their university budget.

UMass has a situation an an independent similar to Army. Both schools are nestled in the Northeast and play mediocre to terrible football. However both have a lot of value for their media markets and as quality academic institutions.

What makes sense is that as soon as the next B12 TV deal is signed be it in 2024 or earlier and post realignment (either/or teams leaving or going from the B12) the next logical move is a breakaway CUSA East conference that would be more than happy to add UMass all sports. I know UMass thinks they are right for the AAC but there may be very few if any openings in the AAC when the next moves happen and the votes are not there for adding another northeastern school.