(12-08-2017 03:46 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 02:29 PM)cmett003 Wrote:  C-USA has a problem, a self inflicted one but a problem non the less. Here is the latest article about why C-USA is a failing model.

http://www.sunherald.com/sports/college/...05609.html

It talks about increase travel costs citing travel between Norfolk Va and El Paso TX, regional realignment between G5 conferences, drop in attendance (probably due to lack of close proximity games or casual fans just don't care about their teams) and lack of TV money. So my question to you all is what do you think we should do? Here are some possibilities for the future of C-USA.

A) Survival of the Fittest - Form a new somewhat regionally based conference with teams from the current C-USA and Sunbelt that have the strongest fan bases and on field products in football and basketball. Also factoring historically relevant programs.

B) Geography Only - Trade teams with the Sunbelt making and east/west split, taking the closest proximity teams even if they are relatively new to FBS football or are brand new start ups

C) Merge with the Sunbelt and making a G5 mega-conference with multiple geographic regions.

D) Do nothing and stick it out with the current C-USA line up and see if things get better

The self-inflicted problem was inviting startups like ODU whose AD complains all the time, UNCC and UTSA. They should have invited Troy, Arkansas St. and ULL at the time. Instead the Sun Belt invited a bunch more startups to compete in recruiting.

ODU and UTSA have faired better in FBS than Charlotte.

(12-08-2017 07:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 07:41 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 03:09 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Depends on how the WAC is going to survive. If the WAC is on its last legs, CUSA West can create a geographic league and take the WAC auto-bid...not issue.

A possible workaround on the CFP monies:

Get the Mountain West to copperate in shedding two teams to get to 10 members - say New Mexico and Air Force. Their payout is still $10 Million, now divided by 10 teams instead of 12 teams (difference per team of $166,667). The 10 Mountain West teams each agree to give up $50,000 from their distributions, which puts an extra $500,000 in the WAC’s coffers, but the Mountain West teams come out over $100,000 ahead in the arrangement. Conference USA then does a similar arrangement for the four teams coming over from their conference. Texas State doesn’t get a parting gift from the Sun Belt since the Sun Belt’s payout drops with their departure. The six incoming WAC teams from C-USA and the MW would split about $1.5 Million in addition to the monies they receive as “independent” teams.

MW
Western - San Diego State, San Jose State, Fresno State, Hawaii, Boise State
Mountain - Nevada, UNLV, Utah State, Wyoming, Colorado Stats

WAC
Air Force, New Mexico, New Mexico State, UTEP, UTSA, Texas State, North Texas, Rice

C-USA
West - Lousiana Tech, Southern Miss, UAB, Middle Tennessee, WKU
East - Marshall, Old Dominion, Charlotte, Florida Atlantic, Florida International

Isnt the whole point to reduce travel costs? What some dont realize is the most likely outcome of such a reorganization is it will be messy. Take SideShowJoes attitude---he thinks things are fine. He is good with how things are. That's not unreasonable. There will be plenty of fans and school administrations that feel like that. The current set up is working well for them. These schools will resist any suggestion of change. Others, who are more unhappy, will continue to push unsuccessfully for change.

So what will happen is the movement to reorganize will be spurred by the unhappy and the end result will likely favor the unhappy schools because they will be the leaders. It will end up being messy, selfish, inefficient, and haphazard. There will be winners and losers...and there will be some who are flat left out.

As an example of what I mean--lets say the movement starts with S Miss. They are positioned toward the center of the current conference. They likely wouldn't design a conference that neatly split CUSA into 2 tidy east-west divisions. No--The ideal smaller compact conference for S Miss would be to take their "half" of CUSA out of the middle of CUSA's footprint so that S MIss remained in the center of the conference--but never had to stray as far from home as they do now. So--maybe they start talking to Rice, LaTech, MTSU, Marshall, WKU, and UAB---who all agree to go start a new conference. They decide ot add Arky St, Troy, and ULL. Thats a great tight pattern for S Miss and its pretty nice deal for all the teams involved--but it leaves a haphazard far flung mess of leftovers that makes no sense. Thats why I say if will probably end up being messy and inefficient.

I think you fail to take some well known understandings into account.

First, the unhappy programs are generally the programs that have smaller or stains on their athletic budgets. Much of their desire to restructure, comes from the idea they can save money. I highly doubt the programs that don't wish to invest in their athletics are going to be the winners, if they leave.

Second, proximity to schools in their region is no guarantee of increased attendance numbers. The "100 Miles of Hate" between WKU and MTSU is supposed to be the premier rivalry in C-USA. These two programs are very obviously very close, but they can;t draw flies to the annual game. And, it doesn't matter which team hosts it either, either site can bring fans. So, proximity won't fix their attendance issues.

Third, state economics have a large impact on some of these programs resolve. The economy is very good in Texas. The Texas schools make up almost 30% of the C-USA membership. Although Rice and UTEP might love to move to the AAC or MWC, neither is going to get an invitation any time soon. And, neither Rice nor UTEP would benefit from breaking from the rest of the Texas block to shack up with regional Sun Belt teams. That won't help their attendance one bit. Rice fans will tell you, North Texas and UTSA bring more fans to Rice Stadium then any other team in C-USA.

Fourth, LA Tech has no desire to leave the Texas programs. LA Tech recruits many of their players from Texas, and the enjoy having road games in Houston and Dallas.

In conclusion, the Texas block plus LA Tech make up almost 36% of the conference membership. That has to be more than enough to make sure there will be no restructuring between C-USA and the Sun Belt, regardless of what most of the eastern programs want.

(12-08-2017 09:03 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 07:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 07:41 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 03:09 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Depends on how the WAC is going to survive. If the WAC is on its last legs, CUSA West can create a geographic league and take the WAC auto-bid...not issue.

A possible workaround on the CFP monies:

Get the Mountain West to copperate in shedding two teams to get to 10 members - say New Mexico and Air Force. Their payout is still $10 Million, now divided by 10 teams instead of 12 teams (difference per team of $166,667). The 10 Mountain West teams each agree to give up $50,000 from their distributions, which puts an extra $500,000 in the WAC’s coffers, but the Mountain West teams come out over $100,000 ahead in the arrangement. Conference USA then does a similar arrangement for the four teams coming over from their conference. Texas State doesn’t get a parting gift from the Sun Belt since the Sun Belt’s payout drops with their departure. The six incoming WAC teams from C-USA and the MW would split about $1.5 Million in addition to the monies they receive as “independent” teams.

MW
Western - San Diego State, San Jose State, Fresno State, Hawaii, Boise State
Mountain - Nevada, UNLV, Utah State, Wyoming, Colorado Stats

WAC
Air Force, New Mexico, New Mexico State, UTEP, UTSA, Texas State, North Texas, Rice

C-USA
West - Lousiana Tech, Southern Miss, UAB, Middle Tennessee, WKU
East - Marshall, Old Dominion, Charlotte, Florida Atlantic, Florida International

Isnt the whole point to reduce travel costs? What some dont realize is the most likely outcome of such a reorganization is it will be messy. Take SideShowJoes attitude---he thinks things are fine. He is good with how things are. That's not unreasonable. There will be plenty of fans and school administrations that feel like that. The current set up is working well for them. These schools will resist any suggestion of change. Others, who are more unhappy, will continue to push unsuccessfully for change.

So what will happen is the movement to reorganize will be spurred by the unhappy and the end result will likely favor the unhappy schools because they will be the leaders. It will end up being messy, selfish, inefficient, and haphazard. There will be winners and losers...and there will be some who are flat left out.

As an example of what I mean--lets say the movement starts with S Miss. They are positioned toward the center of the current conference. They likely wouldn't design a conference that neatly split CUSA into 2 tidy east-west divisions. No--The ideal smaller compact conference for S Miss would be to take their "half" of CUSA out of the middle of CUSA's footprint so that S MIss remained in the center of the conference--but never had to stray as far from home as they do now. So--maybe they start talking to Rice, LaTech, MTSU, Marshall, WKU, and UAB---who all agree to go start a new conference. They decide ot add Arky St, Troy, and ULL. Thats a great tight pattern for S Miss and its pretty nice deal for all the teams involved--but it leaves a haphazard far flung mess of leftovers that makes no sense. Thats why I say if will probably end up being messy and inefficient.

I think you fail to take some well known understandings into account.

First, the unhappy programs are generally the programs that have smaller or stains on their athletic budgets. Much of their desire to restructure, comes from the idea they can save money. I highly doubt the programs that don't wish to invest in their athletics are going to be the winners, if they leave.

Second, proximity to schools in their region is no guarantee of increased attendance numbers. The "100 Miles of Hate" between WKU and MTSU is supposed to be the premier rivalry in C-USA. These two programs are very obviously very close, but they can;t draw flies to the annual game. And, it doesn't matter which team hosts it either, either site can bring fans. So, proximity won't fix their attendance issues.

Third, state economics have a large impact on some of these programs resolve. The economy is very good in Texas. The Texas schools make up almost 30% of the C-USA membership. Although Rice and UTEP might love to move to the AAC or MWC, neither is going to get an invitation any time soon. And, neither Rice nor UTEP would benefit from breaking from the rest of the Texas block to shack up with regional Sun Belt teams. That won't help their attendance one bit. Rice fans will tell you, North Texas and UTSA bring more fans to Rice Stadium then any other team in C-USA.

Fourth, LA Tech has no desire to leave the Texas programs. LA Tech recruits many of their players from Texas, and the enjoy having road games in Houston and Dallas.

In conclusion, the Texas block plus LA Tech make up almost 36% of the conference membership. That has to be more than enough to make sure there will be no restructuring between C-USA and the Sun Belt, regardless of what most of the eastern programs want.

I get all that (though you might want to bone up on the latest higher education budgets from Texas--there were cuts in the last session--the Texas economy is never really rolling unless oil is soaring). My point is that "voting blocks" are irrelavant. Eventually, the unhappy take matters into their own hands. The MW "Airport 5" is a great real life example of that premise in action. Those 5 schools were less than a third of the WAC---but they essentially took matters into their own hands and ended on top. The example I used was simply an illustration of how easily things could get messy and unorganized.

(12-08-2017 09:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 09:03 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 07:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 07:41 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 03:09 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Depends on how the WAC is going to survive. If the WAC is on its last legs, CUSA West can create a geographic league and take the WAC auto-bid...not issue.

A possible workaround on the CFP monies:

Get the Mountain West to copperate in shedding two teams to get to 10 members - say New Mexico and Air Force. Their payout is still $10 Million, now divided by 10 teams instead of 12 teams (difference per team of $166,667). The 10 Mountain West teams each agree to give up $50,000 from their distributions, which puts an extra $500,000 in the WAC’s coffers, but the Mountain West teams come out over $100,000 ahead in the arrangement. Conference USA then does a similar arrangement for the four teams coming over from their conference. Texas State doesn’t get a parting gift from the Sun Belt since the Sun Belt’s payout drops with their departure. The six incoming WAC teams from C-USA and the MW would split about $1.5 Million in addition to the monies they receive as “independent” teams.

MW
Western - San Diego State, San Jose State, Fresno State, Hawaii, Boise State
Mountain - Nevada, UNLV, Utah State, Wyoming, Colorado Stats

WAC
Air Force, New Mexico, New Mexico State, UTEP, UTSA, Texas State, North Texas, Rice

C-USA
West - Lousiana Tech, Southern Miss, UAB, Middle Tennessee, WKU
East - Marshall, Old Dominion, Charlotte, Florida Atlantic, Florida International

Isnt the whole point to reduce travel costs? What some dont realize is the most likely outcome of such a reorganization is it will be messy. Take SideShowJoes attitude---he thinks things are fine. He is good with how things are. That's not unreasonable. There will be plenty of fans and school administrations that feel like that. The current set up is working well for them. These schools will resist any suggestion of change. Others, who are more unhappy, will continue to push unsuccessfully for change.

So what will happen is the movement to reorganize will be spurred by the unhappy and the end result will likely favor the unhappy schools because they will be the leaders. It will end up being messy, selfish, inefficient, and haphazard. There will be winners and losers...and there will be some who are flat left out.

As an example of what I mean--lets say the movement starts with S Miss. They are positioned toward the center of the current conference. They likely wouldn't design a conference that neatly split CUSA into 2 tidy east-west divisions. No--The ideal smaller compact conference for S Miss would be to take their "half" of CUSA out of the middle of CUSA's footprint so that S MIss remained in the center of the conference--but never had to stray as far from home as they do now. So--maybe they start talking to Rice, LaTech, MTSU, Marshall, WKU, and UAB---who all agree to go start a new conference. They decide ot add Arky St, Troy, and ULL. Thats a great tight pattern for S Miss and its pretty nice deal for all the teams involved--but it leaves a haphazard far flung mess of leftovers that makes no sense. Thats why I say if will probably end up being messy and inefficient.

I think you fail to take some well known understandings into account.

First, the unhappy programs are generally the programs that have smaller or stains on their athletic budgets. Much of their desire to restructure, comes from the idea they can save money. I highly doubt the programs that don't wish to invest in their athletics are going to be the winners, if they leave.

Second, proximity to schools in their region is no guarantee of increased attendance numbers. The "100 Miles of Hate" between WKU and MTSU is supposed to be the premier rivalry in C-USA. These two programs are very obviously very close, but they can;t draw flies to the annual game. And, it doesn't matter which team hosts it either, either site can bring fans. So, proximity won't fix their attendance issues.

Third, state economics have a large impact on some of these programs resolve. The economy is very good in Texas. The Texas schools make up almost 30% of the C-USA membership. Although Rice and UTEP might love to move to the AAC or MWC, neither is going to get an invitation any time soon. And, neither Rice nor UTEP would benefit from breaking from the rest of the Texas block to shack up with regional Sun Belt teams. That won't help their attendance one bit. Rice fans will tell you, North Texas and UTSA bring more fans to Rice Stadium then any other team in C-USA.

Fourth, LA Tech has no desire to leave the Texas programs. LA Tech recruits many of their players from Texas, and the enjoy having road games in Houston and Dallas.

In conclusion, the Texas block plus LA Tech make up almost 36% of the conference membership. That has to be more than enough to make sure there will be no restructuring between C-USA and the Sun Belt, regardless of what most of the eastern programs want.

I get all that (though you might want to bone up on the latest higher education budgets from Texas--there were cuts in the last session). My point is that "voting blocks" are irrelavant. Eventually, the unhappy take matters into their own hands. The MW "Airport 5" is a great real life example of that premise in action. Those 5 schools barely made up 30% of the WAC--but they essentially ended up gutting it. The example I used was simply an illustration of how easily things could get messy and unorganized.

Higher education budgets are not the same as athletic budgets. I think it is safe to say the athletic budgets of the Texas programs in C-USA are growing. I know the North Texas athletic budget is growing. And, that airport meeting was almost 20 years ago. The world of college football is very different now. It just isn't feasible for the unhappy programs to break off and form a new conference. This improbable new conference would have no NCAA auto-bid. There is a freeze on new bowls and the new conference would have no bowl ties.

The "Airport 5" schools were some of the most successful members of the old WAC and they wanted to elevate their programs. The founding "Airport/MWC" programs like BYU, Colorado State, Air Force, and Utah all had solid athletic budgets and attendance. They were working from a position of strength. These unhappy teams in C-USA are not looking to elevate their programs. They just want to save money. That isn't a solid plan for growth, or success.

Our 36% should be enough to block any discussion of restructuring. That makes our voting block very relevant. Any unhappy program that leaves C-USA would almost certainly end up in a worse situation.

Marshall, ODU, Charlotte (if they will commit the funds to compete in the top three sports, if not kick them out), Liberty (they are committed), James Madison, Appalachian St., Georgia St, Georgia Southern, Coastal Carolina, FAU, FIU & South Alabama. 20 conference basketball games. Tight nit geography.

(12-08-2017 09:41 PM)Rabonchild Wrote:  Marshall, ODU, Charlotte (if they will commit the funds to compete in the top three sports, if not kick them out), Liberty (they are committed), James Madison, Appalachian St., Georgia St, Georgia Southern, Coastal Carolina, FAU, FIU & South Alabama. 20 conference basketball games. Tight nit geography.

ODU is out spending the rest of the CUSA right now. They have a spending buget of the lower end of the AAC.

(12-08-2017 03:17 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  How about this?

Southwest Conference
East: Arkansas State, La Tech, ULL, South Alabama, USM, UAB
West: NMSU, North Texas, Rice, Texas State, UTEP, UTSA

Atlantic South Conference
North: App State, Charlotte, Marshall, MTSU, ODU, WKU
South: CCU, FAU, FIU, Georgia Southern, Georgia State, Troy

ULM, UALR, and UTA are left out in the cold.

Here's a better(?) eastern conference:

Atlantic South Conference
North: JMU, Marshall, MTSU, ODU, UMass*, WKU
South: App State, Charlotte, FAU, FIU, Georgia Southern, Georgia State
* = FB only

11 basketball schools allows for a simple 20-game conference schedule.

(CCU and Troy are also left out in the cold. Although at this point, 5 Sun Belt schools aren't included in the new conferences, so it's likely they'll just rebuild from FCS as they have in the past.)

I know this whole idea is unrealistic, but if there is to be a deal between the C-USA and Sun Belt schools to realign geographically (say around 2025?), I'm thinking that all current football schools have to be accounted for. If any are left out, they could simply restock from the FCS, and then there's yet another FBS conference to compete with for CFP money. However, this does not mean all football schools must be retained as full members, but instead could be football-only affiliates. This is a compromise to placate C-USA schools that think the SBC schools are beneath them.

So let's say C-USA votes to disband, with the former West Division schools creating a new Southwest Conference, while the former East Division schools create a new Atlantic South Conference. These conferences replace the SBC and C-USA in the new CFP payout structure. The SWC invites NMSU, Texas State, Arkansas State, ULL, and South Alabama as full members and Troy and ULM as football-only affliates. The ASC invites JMU, App State, Georgia Southern, and Georgia State as full members and CCU, UMass, and Army as football-only affiliates. Meanwhile the SBC drops football but survives as the primary home of UALR, UTA, ULM, Troy, and CCU (along with some new adds from other conferences). Thus we have:

Southwest Conference
East: La Tech, ULL, ULM*, South Alabama, USM, Troy*, UAB
West: Arkansas State, NMSU, North Texas, Rice, Texas State, UTEP, UTSA

Atlantic South Conference
North: Army*, JMU, Marshall, MTSU, ODU, UMass*, WKU
South: App State, Charlotte, CCU*, FAU, FIU, Georgia Southern, Georgia State

Sun Belt Conference (NFB)
CCU, UALR, ULM, UTA, Troy, etc.

* = FB only

(12-08-2017 03:09 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Depends on how the WAC is going to survive. If the WAC is on its last legs, CUSA West can create a geographic league and take the WAC auto-bid...not issue. The issue would be on the football side and the lack of CFP money and no Access bowl since it is written for the existing 5 non-contract schools.
If accommodation can be made within the G5 to be a G6, the new WAC can exist but with the MW splitting to where Utah St and Boise St join the west division members to be the New WAC and the MW front range schools keep the MW by adding CUSA Texas schools along with Texas St, NMSU, La Tech and ULL to give 2 very regional divisions.
West: UTEP, NMSU, NM, AF, CSU, WYO
East: UTSA, Tex St, UNT, Rice, LaTech, ULL.

The rest of CUSA and Sunbelt can reorg accordingly.

It's not like CUSA realistically has a chance as it is....

Well, we seemed to have left off some schools that wants to be FBS.

Stony Brook
Youngstown State
Eastern Kentucky
Delaware will follow JMU.
Jacksonville State
UTRGV
Lamar
Sam Houston State
Northern Iowa
Missouri State will follow Northern Iowa since MVC sucks in basketball when many of the big names left.
Towson might want to follow as well. By 2025, we might see some schools from the AAC and MWC get picked up as part of the P5 group. That means the two conferences could take schools from CUSA, SBC and MAC. Lets say UMass. Southern Mississippi and ODU gets invited to the AAC along with Rice? MWC could grab UTEP, Sacramento State and UTSA? CUSA will have to look at Northern illinois, Ohio U., Arkansas State, La.-Lafayette, south alabama, James madison, Missouri State, georgia southern to choose from.

Why not merge Conference USA and the Sun Belt like this?
https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...r-football

C-USA, Sun Belt merger can’t come fast enough
http://www.sunherald.com/sports/spt-colu...13204.html

Conference USA/Sunbelt Conference breakdown:
Conference USA = Conference USA West + Sunbelt Conference west
Sunbelt Conference = Conference USA East + Sunbelt Conference East

Conference USA (revised)
CUSA West
N TX
Rice
UTEP
UTSA
TX St
AR St (stAte)

CUSA East
LA Tech
Lousiana
Lousiana-Monroe
USM
UAB
S. AL

Sunbelt Conference (revised)
Sunbelt North
Western KY
Middle TN
Marshall
Old Dominion
Charlotte
Appalachian St.

Sunbelt South
Coastal Carolina
GA St
GA Southern
Troy
FIU
FAU

CUSA revised rebrand into new Southwest Conference.
CUSA revised --> Southwest Conference

if LA Tech has issue with being in the same division with the other LA schools then stAte can switch with LA Tech...

Sunbelt Conference (non-football)
UT-Arlington
AR-Little Rock

Before you think about which schools go where start thinking about the numbers within the G5.

Mountain West 12
Conference USA 14
Mid American 12
American Athletic 12
Sun Belt 10

If there is any kind of realignment by the P5 they'll be looking to the G5 as backfill options.

B12 (Colorado St, Houston)
AAC (Rice)
MWC (UTEP)

One simple move takes CUSA down to 12 in membership. However realignment should be more dramatic with a chance to take CUSA down to 10 in FB.

Mountain West 12
Conference USA 10
Mid American 12
American Athletic 10
Sun Belt 10

This would solve a lot of the bloat in CUSA.

(12-08-2017 09:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I get all that (though you might want to bone up on the latest higher education budgets from Texas--there were cuts in the last session--the Texas economy is never really rolling unless oil is soaring). My point is that "voting blocks" are irrelavant. Eventually, the unhappy take matters into their own hands. The MW "Airport 5" is a great real life example of that premise in action. Those 5 schools were less than a third of the WAC---but they essentially took matters into their own hands and ended on top. The example I used was simply an illustration of how easily things could get messy and unorganized.

Starting a new conference, that has a basketball auto bid, bowl ties, and football championship revenue sharing is probably even messier. If C-USA can't solve this, a more likely outcome might be programs withdrawing to place the Olympic sports in a regional conference and play football as an independent.

(12-08-2017 02:42 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Honestly, I'm surprised C-USA basketball isn't stronger than it is... ODU, Charlotte, WKU, UTEP, UAB, MTSU, even LaTech and Southern Miss from time to time, there are some teams with solid basketball histories. I assumed it would take a while for football to grow, with a few upstart programs. But I really thought it would be a good basketball league.

Not sure what I'd do if I were commish. It's a tough situation. But I don't think you can remove anyone, and I don't think the Sun Belt would be interested in swapping teams for geographical reasons.

You have to wonder if - with Liberty and NMSU joining the independent ranks - some of the better schools might look to move to a better basketball league and go independent in football. Would WKU or ODU try for the A10? I'm not sure. It's just a tough situation.

I’m surprised basketball is not stronger either. Half the conference has tradition and history, there’s no excuse the conference is a one bid league even if the bottom is bad.

Tim Floyd made the case UTEP should be in the MWC when he retired two weeks ago. He said the new AD should make the move and C-USA is killing UTEP athletics which I disagree. UTEP’s issues are internal not external and if that was the case, UTEP basketball should be dominating C-USA and that hasn’t been the case.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/...yds-sudden

If C-USA bides its time, the situation may end up resolving itself. For instance, in a hypothetical P4 scenario in 2025, the rebuilding Big 12 strips away most of the AAC schools. The few remaining AAC schools rebuild around a core of C-USA West, while the rump C-USA remains an eastern circuit. Like so:

AAC
East: La Tech, USM, Tulane, Tulsa, UAB
West: NMSU, North Texas, Rice, UTEP, UTSA
Non-FB: Wichita State

Big 12
East: UCF, UConn, ECU, Memphis, USF, Temple
West: Baylor, BYU*, ISU, KSU, Navy*, SMU

C-USA
North: Army*, Charlotte, JMU, Marshall, UMass*, ODU
South: App State, FAU, FIU, Georgia Southern, MTSU, WKU

Sun Belt
East: CCU, EKU, Georgia State, Liberty*, Troy
West: Ark State, ULL, ULM, South Alabama, Texas State
Non-FB: UALR, UTA

* = FB only

The MAC and MWC stay the same. Note that here, Cincinnati and Houston have been raptured into the P4. Of the Big 12 2.0 schools, only Baylor, ISU, and KSU were unable to find P4 homes.

Conference USA proves again that it’s a failing model
http://www.sunherald.com/sports/college/...05609.html

C-USA should dissolve or get creative to survive
http://www.sunherald.com/sports/college/...99052.html

The attendance numbers are horrendous. 2,500 for Florida International vs UMASS? Less than 10k actual fans at the last 2 CUSA CCG's? The UTEP Old Dominion distance of 2,000 miles? (The AAC does stretch from Connecticut to Texas which is very weird I concede) 200k a year per school for tv money in the existing contract that is in year 2 of a 2 year deal--if that number lowers the conference will end. Not in a few years. Now.

(12-08-2017 02:54 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  The AAC has a much bigger footprint than CUSA and it says on this board that the footprint should stretch to San Diego. Boise to Connecticut and Tampa to San Diego. It's a great model and should be working for CUSA too. Markets, tv and big metro areas is what it's all about now for conferences. No question.

So what's it like to still live in 2007?

East: Georgia Southern, App State, MTSU, ODU, Marshall, and Troy
West: UAB, USM, La Tech, ULL, Ark State, and WKU

^all these schools are historically-known teams of comprehensive research schools located in college towns or small cities. They have, to my knowledge, all played each other at some point in their histories and that commonality along with the easy traveling would sell tickets very well. They have strong support both financially and in attendance and a good on-field product in both football and basketball.

East: Coastal Carolina, Charlotte, GA State, USA, FIU, and FAU
West: ULM, TXST, UNT, Rice, UTSA, and UTEP

^The teams in the East division have all started their programs in the last 10-15 years and are huge research schools located in large markets in urban cities with tons of potential. In the west, the Texas schools will finally be in a division together plus ULM. Both divisions are fairly compact and almost all the schools are located in cities with major airports so travel costs would be a non issue. This conference would also have killer baseball.

(12-08-2017 09:37 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 09:08 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 09:03 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 07:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-08-2017 07:41 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  A possible workaround on the CFP monies:

Get the Mountain West to copperate in shedding two teams to get to 10 members - say New Mexico and Air Force. Their payout is still $10 Million, now divided by 10 teams instead of 12 teams (difference per team of $166,667). The 10 Mountain West teams each agree to give up $50,000 from their distributions, which puts an extra $500,000 in the WAC’s coffers, but the Mountain West teams come out over $100,000 ahead in the arrangement. Conference USA then does a similar arrangement for the four teams coming over from their conference. Texas State doesn’t get a parting gift from the Sun Belt since the Sun Belt’s payout drops with their departure. The six incoming WAC teams from C-USA and the MW would split about $1.5 Million in addition to the monies they receive as “independent” teams.

MW
Western - San Diego State, San Jose State, Fresno State, Hawaii, Boise State
Mountain - Nevada, UNLV, Utah State, Wyoming, Colorado Stats

WAC
Air Force, New Mexico, New Mexico State, UTEP, UTSA, Texas State, North Texas, Rice

C-USA
West - Lousiana Tech, Southern Miss, UAB, Middle Tennessee, WKU
East - Marshall, Old Dominion, Charlotte, Florida Atlantic, Florida International

Isnt the whole point to reduce travel costs? What some dont realize is the most likely outcome of such a reorganization is it will be messy. Take SideShowJoes attitude---he thinks things are fine. He is good with how things are. That's not unreasonable. There will be plenty of fans and school administrations that feel like that. The current set up is working well for them. These schools will resist any suggestion of change. Others, who are more unhappy, will continue to push unsuccessfully for change.

So what will happen is the movement to reorganize will be spurred by the unhappy and the end result will likely favor the unhappy schools because they will be the leaders. It will end up being messy, selfish, inefficient, and haphazard. There will be winners and losers...and there will be some who are flat left out.

As an example of what I mean--lets say the movement starts with S Miss. They are positioned toward the center of the current conference. They likely wouldn't design a conference that neatly split CUSA into 2 tidy east-west divisions. No--The ideal smaller compact conference for S Miss would be to take their "half" of CUSA out of the middle of CUSA's footprint so that S MIss remained in the center of the conference--but never had to stray as far from home as they do now. So--maybe they start talking to Rice, LaTech, MTSU, Marshall, WKU, and UAB---who all agree to go start a new conference. They decide ot add Arky St, Troy, and ULL. Thats a great tight pattern for S Miss and its pretty nice deal for all the teams involved--but it leaves a haphazard far flung mess of leftovers that makes no sense. Thats why I say if will probably end up being messy and inefficient.

I think you fail to take some well known understandings into account.

First, the unhappy programs are generally the programs that have smaller or stains on their athletic budgets. Much of their desire to restructure, comes from the idea they can save money. I highly doubt the programs that don't wish to invest in their athletics are going to be the winners, if they leave.

Second, proximity to schools in their region is no guarantee of increased attendance numbers. The "100 Miles of Hate" between WKU and MTSU is supposed to be the premier rivalry in C-USA. These two programs are very obviously very close, but they can;t draw flies to the annual game. And, it doesn't matter which team hosts it either, either site can bring fans. So, proximity won't fix their attendance issues.

Third, state economics have a large impact on some of these programs resolve. The economy is very good in Texas. The Texas schools make up almost 30% of the C-USA membership. Although Rice and UTEP might love to move to the AAC or MWC, neither is going to get an invitation any time soon. And, neither Rice nor UTEP would benefit from breaking from the rest of the Texas block to shack up with regional Sun Belt teams. That won't help their attendance one bit. Rice fans will tell you, North Texas and UTSA bring more fans to Rice Stadium then any other team in C-USA.

Fourth, LA Tech has no desire to leave the Texas programs. LA Tech recruits many of their players from Texas, and the enjoy having road games in Houston and Dallas.

In conclusion, the Texas block plus LA Tech make up almost 36% of the conference membership. That has to be more than enough to make sure there will be no restructuring between C-USA and the Sun Belt, regardless of what most of the eastern programs want.

I get all that (though you might want to bone up on the latest higher education budgets from Texas--there were cuts in the last session). My point is that "voting blocks" are irrelavant. Eventually, the unhappy take matters into their own hands. The MW "Airport 5" is a great real life example of that premise in action. Those 5 schools barely made up 30% of the WAC--but they essentially ended up gutting it. The example I used was simply an illustration of how easily things could get messy and unorganized.

Higher education budgets are not the same as athletic budgets. I think it is safe to say the athletic budgets of the Texas programs in C-USA are growing. I know the North Texas athletic budget is growing. And, that airport meeting was almost 20 years ago. The world of college football is very different now. It just isn't feasible for the unhappy programs to break off and form a new conference. This improbable new conference would have no NCAA auto-bid. There is a freeze on new bowls and the new conference would have no bowl ties.

The "Airport 5" schools were some of the most successful members of the old WAC and they wanted to elevate their programs. The founding "Airport/MWC" programs like BYU, Colorado State, Air Force, and Utah all had solid athletic budgets and attendance. They were working from a position of strength. These unhappy teams in C-USA are not looking to elevate their programs. They just want to save money. That isn't a solid plan for growth, or success.

Our 36% should be enough to block any discussion of restructuring. That makes our voting block very relevant. Any unhappy program that leaves C-USA would almost certainly end up in a worse situation.

S Miss is probably the best known program in CUSA (certainly has the biggest fan base). ODU has the biggest budget if I remember correctly. As for blocking restructuring---your “voting block" has no control what so ever over who leaves to create a new conference or joins another existing conference.

Your last sentence is certainly true from your point of view. Thats the point Im trying make you understand. Your school’s view of "better" or "worse" is only relevant to your schoool and would clearly not be the same as any group of schools that decided to leave--otherwise they wouldnt want to leave. Conferences are simply marriages of convenience and mutual benefit. If the relationship ever ceases to be convenient and beneficial to some members--you can bet change is on the horizon. If the Airport 5 is too old of an example—then how about the C7 and the 2012-2013 split of the old Big East.