Quote:Caruters did a sports update:
-NMSU is in both the WAC and Sunbelt for the foreseeable future.
-The Sunbelt is waiting to see what James Madison University does. Carruthers gets the feeling that the SBC would rather have them than us.
-We are too far west for a majority of the schools in the SBC.
-Carruthers wants to see 2 or 3 more schools added to the WAC.
-NMSU needs to help strengthen the WAC. NMSU might have to consider adding Men's Soccer in order to attract more schools to the WAC.
-Conference realignment is still very fluid.
http://crimsonaggieconnection.weebly.com...02113.html
It definitely sounds like JMU is as rumored the SBC's prime target. I'm not sure if any other conferences are that interested in adding the school.
There may be some more changes within the G5 leagues and that is where I could see JMU somehow landing in CUSA as more schools move around. That may be a couple years off in the horizon and JMU could wait it out if they wanted to.
I'd much rather see the G5 leagues cooperate and form conferences that make sense geographically.
It will pay off for them in the long term, and probably in the short term too.
JMU has had a standing invite to the Sun Belt for a while now. If they were actually interested in that route, they would have taken it already.
(10-21-2013 04:07 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]I'd much rather see the G5 leagues cooperate and form conferences that make sense geographically.
It will pay off for them in the long term, and probably in the short term too.
I have talked to someone who thinks that could very well be happening and driven by the Texas schools of the AAC and CUSA wanting to get together.
Past history though says it won't happen because the TV $$$ is better in a multi-state wide geographically dispersed conference. The NCAA rules for starting new league from scratch almost make it impossible for it to happen these days.
(10-21-2013 04:37 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ] (10-21-2013 04:07 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]I'd much rather see the G5 leagues cooperate and form conferences that make sense geographically.
It will pay off for them in the long term, and probably in the short term too.
I have talked to someone who thinks that could very well be happening and driven by the Texas schools of the AAC and CUSA wanting to get together.
Past history though says it won't happen because the TV $$$ is better in a multi-state wide geographically dispersed conference. The NCAA rules for starting new league from scratch almost make it impossible for it to happen these days.
Multi-state doesn't require an insane geographic spread. SMU, UNT, Ark St, Tulsa (for instance) are a great start to a sensible conference.
Its football season thru Go Daddy Jan 5. Realignment season begins Feb 6h after signing day.
(10-21-2013 07:59 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ] (10-21-2013 04:37 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ] (10-21-2013 04:07 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]I'd much rather see the G5 leagues cooperate and form conferences that make sense geographically.
It will pay off for them in the long term, and probably in the short term too.
I have talked to someone who thinks that could very well be happening and driven by the Texas schools of the AAC and CUSA wanting to get together.
Past history though says it won't happen because the TV $$$ is better in a multi-state wide geographically dispersed conference. The NCAA rules for starting new league from scratch almost make it impossible for it to happen these days.
Multi-state doesn't require an insane geographic spread. SMU, UNT, Ark St, Tulsa (for instance) are a great start to a sensible conference.
The southwest schools that are now in the AAC and CUSA have never played together in the same league aside from Rice and UTEP (LaTech briefly) and Houston doesn't want to play UNT and Ark State.
Where is the TV money in a league with SMU, Houston, UTEP, UTSA, UNT, Rice and Texas State? That league would be a complete non-factor in men's basketball and in football nobody would care outside of Texas. Unless they could somehow convince Memphis to join but I doubt they would have any interest leaving behind Cincinnati, Temple and Connecticut in the AAC.
Sun Belt should simply offer MO State an all-sports invite...their baseball and basketball would be assets for the Belt.
and MO State hoops would suddenly be a pretty big fish in a small pond...that leads to lots of Ws
(10-22-2013 12:38 AM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ] (10-21-2013 07:59 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ] (10-21-2013 04:37 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ] (10-21-2013 04:07 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]I'd much rather see the G5 leagues cooperate and form conferences that make sense geographically.
It will pay off for them in the long term, and probably in the short term too.
I have talked to someone who thinks that could very well be happening and driven by the Texas schools of the AAC and CUSA wanting to get together.
Past history though says it won't happen because the TV $$$ is better in a multi-state wide geographically dispersed conference. The NCAA rules for starting new league from scratch almost make it impossible for it to happen these days.
Multi-state doesn't require an insane geographic spread. SMU, UNT, Ark St, Tulsa (for instance) are a great start to a sensible conference.
The southwest schools that are now in the AAC and CUSA have never played together in the same league aside from Rice and UTEP (LaTech briefly) and Houston doesn't want to play UNT and Ark State.
Where is the TV money in a league with SMU, Houston, UTEP, UTSA, UNT, Rice and Texas State? That league would be a complete non-factor in men's basketball and in football nobody would care outside of Texas. Unless they could somehow convince Memphis to join but I doubt they would have any interest leaving behind Cincinnati, Temple and Connecticut in the AAC.
Not just no...hell no.
(10-22-2013 12:39 PM)UofMemphis Wrote: [ -> ]Sun Belt should simply offer MO State an all-sports invite...their baseball and basketball would be assets for the Belt.
and MO State hoops would suddenly be a pretty big fish in a small pond...that leads to lots of Ws
That makes a lot of sense to me. Some Missouri State fans may not like leaving the SBC but overall its a good deal.
The SBC is sitting at 9 all sports schools and 2 non-FB/2 non-BB. Bringing in Missouri State brings that to 10 all sports but 12 FB/12 BB.
I'm growing more of the opinion that the MAC should cut UMass lose and just sit at 12 schools. If its only going to be 5 bowl games for this conference there is no point in trying to grow the membership to 14/16.
Here is another point about the MAC heading East to expand with UMass and JMU; it mimics the move the B1G made with Rutgers & Maryland.
B1G: Maryland, Rutgers
MAC: Massachusetts, James Madison
The MAC sticking with 12 and a group of Great Lakes oriented schools could be a nice niche. A niche that looks less and less like the B1G with each expansion they make.
All the MAC needs to do is up the investment level in basketball. I'm seeing it at Ohio, Akron, Ball State and Buffalo (Toledo?) but a lot of this conference isn't investing at a level required to make a difference.
(10-22-2013 12:38 AM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ] (10-21-2013 07:59 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ] (10-21-2013 04:37 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ] (10-21-2013 04:07 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]I'd much rather see the G5 leagues cooperate and form conferences that make sense geographically.
It will pay off for them in the long term, and probably in the short term too.
I have talked to someone who thinks that could very well be happening and driven by the Texas schools of the AAC and CUSA wanting to get together.
Past history though says it won't happen because the TV $$$ is better in a multi-state wide geographically dispersed conference. The NCAA rules for starting new league from scratch almost make it impossible for it to happen these days.
Multi-state doesn't require an insane geographic spread. SMU, UNT, Ark St, Tulsa (for instance) are a great start to a sensible conference.
The southwest schools that are now in the AAC and CUSA have never played together in the same league aside from Rice and UTEP (LaTech briefly) and Houston doesn't want to play UNT and Ark State.
Where is the TV money in a league with SMU, Houston, UTEP, UTSA, UNT, Rice and Texas State? That league would be a complete non-factor in men's basketball and in football nobody would care outside of Texas. Unless they could somehow convince Memphis to join but I doubt they would have any interest leaving behind Cincinnati, Temple and Connecticut in the AAC.
You're the only one talking about an all TX conference. It makes no sense to me.
(10-21-2013 04:31 PM)uakronkid Wrote: [ -> ]JMU has had a standing invite to the Sun Belt for a while now. If they were actually interested in that route, they would have taken it already.
JMU won't accept until they feel certain that it is their only choice. The Sun Belt is the worst geographic fit of the leagues that would potentially consider them.
But I don't think it is likely that the MAC or CUSA is in any hurry to expand.
(10-21-2013 04:37 PM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ] (10-21-2013 04:07 PM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]I'd much rather see the G5 leagues cooperate and form conferences that make sense geographically.
It will pay off for them in the long term, and probably in the short term too.
I have talked to someone who thinks that could very well be happening and driven by the Texas schools of the AAC and CUSA wanting to get together.
Past history though says it won't happen because the TV $$$ is better in a multi-state wide geographically dispersed conference. The NCAA rules for starting new league from scratch almost make it impossible for it to happen these days.
Neither Houston or SMU is looking to leave a viable AAC for something like your describing. If D4 left Houston and SMU behind and both the AAC and MW were destroyed in the process--then maybe it might be a more viable concept.
(10-22-2013 05:02 PM)BruceMcF Wrote: [ -> ]Note that Off-Topic post is indeed Off-Topic, and there is a board for that at this very site.
The intent was to have the discussion on the MAC board as a MAC candidate.
(10-23-2013 01:42 AM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ] (10-21-2013 04:31 PM)uakronkid Wrote: [ -> ]JMU has had a standing invite to the Sun Belt for a while now. If they were actually interested in that route, they would have taken it already.
JMU won't accept until they feel certain that it is their only choice. The Sun Belt is the worst geographic fit of the leagues that would potentially consider them.
But I don't think it is likely that the MAC or CUSA is in any hurry to expand.
That is the question ~ the MAC has one spot for a good fit. The question is whether the MAC considers JMU as a good fit. And its not urgent for the MAC to expand, so while the MAC has a spot for a good fit, they are not forced to offer a spot to the "best available" fit ... unless they think that the candidate is a good fit on an absolute basis, they can just wait.
(10-23-2013 09:11 AM)BruceMcF Wrote: [ -> ] (10-23-2013 01:42 AM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ] (10-21-2013 04:31 PM)uakronkid Wrote: [ -> ]JMU has had a standing invite to the Sun Belt for a while now. If they were actually interested in that route, they would have taken it already.
JMU won't accept until they feel certain that it is their only choice. The Sun Belt is the worst geographic fit of the leagues that would potentially consider them.
But I don't think it is likely that the MAC or CUSA is in any hurry to expand.
That is the question ~ the MAC has one spot for a good fit. The question is whether the MAC considers JMU as a good fit. And its not urgent for the MAC to expand, so while the MAC has a spot for a good fit, they are not forced to offer a spot to the "best available" fit ... unless they think that the candidate is a good fit on an absolute basis, they can just wait.
But it will cost the MAC just over $80k per school to add JMU. That wasn't the case when UMass was added to balance Temple.
(10-23-2013 09:38 AM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]But it will cost the MAC just over $80k per school to add JMU. That wasn't the case when UMass was added to balance Temple.
Yes, which is why the MAC has room to expand for one good fit ~ even on the $12m split, it will only cost $80,000 per school. If it really is a good fit, there's no reason it shouldn't lead to a modest increase in per-school media value for the next contract renegotiation, so the net cost would likely be less than $50,000.
If it really
is a good fit, a large majority of MAC schools would not balk at doing it over $50,000.
But this isn't the "emergency replacement" scenarios that Conference USA and the Sunbelt were in ... its clearly not worth it
unless the Presidents (in a President-dominated conference) view the prospective candidate as a truly good fit.
(10-23-2013 02:53 AM)Kittonhead Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2013 05:02 PM)BruceMcF Wrote: [ -> ]Note that Off-Topic post is indeed Off-Topic, and there is a board for that at this very site.
The intent was to have the discussion on the MAC board as a MAC candidate.
There's a long running thread on the MAC board for that discussion that everyone would recognize for what it is and either read or ignore as they see fit ~ no point in starting a separate conference realignment discussion on the MAC board in FB or BBall season unless there is actual news regarding realignment coming out of the MAC. Fortunately the topic was moved to the forum where it is not off topic.
You REALLY believe that the MAC which receives roughly $1 million in TV rights now is going to receive an additional $1 million by replacing a team in the #4 tv market with JMU?