CSNbbs

CBS Sports is reporting an early preliminary set of talks for regionalization for a joining of conferences AAC, Sun Belt, and C-USA. The MAC, and Mountain West are not included in these proposals.

Here’s the article.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...ed-monday/

Quote: When asked about the C-USA concept, an AAC spokesman told CBS Sports, "We have zero interest in that. That's not in our plan.

Lol

It’s a trap!

(10-11-2021 01:54 AM)Briskbas Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote: When asked about the C-USA concept, an AAC spokesman told CBS Sports, "We have zero interest in that. That's not in our plan.

Lol

Wow Briskbas, You jumped on that fast. I was only making the board aware of the article as I thought it was an interesting read. A spokesman could be anybody and if there were any interest at all then I am sure at this stage of the proposal it would be denied. It appealed enough to you to read the article and make your LOL comment. Have a cup of coffee and simmer down.

I certainly understand CUSA trying to elevate themselves. They have been big losers all along in realignment. But there is no incentive for the AAC or even the Sun to give up good programs to help out CUSA. There are clear gaps between the AAC, the Sun, and CUSA.

It makes more sense for this to be done between the MWC and the AAC, as they will be equal peers after the 3 leave the AAC, and after the MWC possibly loses scheduling with BYU.

May be a refreshed article, this was out there a few weeks ago

(10-11-2021 10:11 AM)Tiger87 Wrote: [ -> ]I certainly understand CUSA trying to elevate themselves. They have been big losers all along in realignment. But there is no incentive for the AAC or even the Sun to give up good programs to help out CUSA. There are clear gaps between the AAC, the Sun, and CUSA.

It makes more sense for this to be done between the MWC and the AAC, as they will be equal peers after the 3 leave the AAC, and after the MWC possibly loses scheduling with BYU.

Maybe something like one of these two options ... (would both conferences losing some members)

2 8-team Divisions

AAC / East

East Carolina
Memphis
Navy
SMU
South Florida
Temple
Tulane
Tulsa

MWC / West

Air Force
Boise State
Colorado St.
Fresno St.
Nevada
San Diego St.
UNLV
Utah State


or 4 4-team quadrants ( might help out the non-rev sports )

Quad One
East Carolina
Navy
South Florida
Temple

Quad Two
Air Force
Boise State
Colorado St.
Utah State

Quad Three
Memphis
SMU
Tulane
Tulsa

Quad Four
Fresno St.
Nevada
San Diego St.
UNLV

(10-11-2021 11:56 AM)DDrum1961 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-11-2021 10:11 AM)Tiger87 Wrote: [ -> ]I certainly understand CUSA trying to elevate themselves. They have been big losers all along in realignment. But there is no incentive for the AAC or even the Sun to give up good programs to help out CUSA. There are clear gaps between the AAC, the Sun, and CUSA.

It makes more sense for this to be done between the MWC and the AAC, as they will be equal peers after the 3 leave the AAC, and after the MWC possibly loses scheduling with BYU.

Maybe something like one of these two options ... (would both conferences losing some members)

2 8-team Divisions

AAC / East

East Carolina
Memphis
Navy
SMU
South Florida
Temple
Tulane
Tulsa

MWC / West

Air Force
Boise State
Colorado St.
Fresno St.
Nevada
San Diego St.
UNLV
Utah State


or 4 4-team quadrants ( might help out the non-rev sports )

Quad One
East Carolina
Navy
South Florida
Temple

Quad Two
Air Force
Boise State
Colorado St.
Utah State

Quad Three
Memphis
SMU
Tulane
Tulsa

Quad Four
Fresno St.
Nevada
San Diego St.
UNLV

Exactly.
4x4 makes a lot of sense.

Q1 and Q3 play each other in football (same for Q2 & Q4). And play 1 team from each of the other 2 quads each year, rotating every 3rd year. 9 conference games.

Basketball, play within your quad 2x (H/A) and play all other teams once. 18 conference games.

Non-revenue, just play Q1 & Q3 (or Q2 & Q4) games until conference tournament. Exception might be some in-season tournaments at conference sites.

(10-11-2021 01:31 PM)Tiger87 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-11-2021 11:56 AM)DDrum1961 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-11-2021 10:11 AM)Tiger87 Wrote: [ -> ]I certainly understand CUSA trying to elevate themselves. They have been big losers all along in realignment. But there is no incentive for the AAC or even the Sun to give up good programs to help out CUSA. There are clear gaps between the AAC, the Sun, and CUSA.

It makes more sense for this to be done between the MWC and the AAC, as they will be equal peers after the 3 leave the AAC, and after the MWC possibly loses scheduling with BYU.

Maybe something like one of these two options ... (would both conferences losing some members)

2 8-team Divisions

AAC / East

East Carolina
Memphis
Navy
SMU
South Florida
Temple
Tulane
Tulsa

MWC / West

Air Force
Boise State
Colorado St.
Fresno St.
Nevada
San Diego St.
UNLV
Utah State


or 4 4-team quadrants ( might help out the non-rev sports )

Quad One
East Carolina
Navy
South Florida
Temple

Quad Two
Air Force
Boise State
Colorado St.
Utah State

Quad Three
Memphis
SMU
Tulane
Tulsa

Quad Four
Fresno St.
Nevada
San Diego St.
UNLV

Exactly.
4x4 makes a lot of sense.

Q1 and Q3 play each other in football (same for Q2 & Q4). And play 1 team from each of the other 2 quads each year, rotating every 3rd year. 9 conference games.

Basketball, play within your quad 2x (H/A) and play all other teams once. 18 conference games.

Non-revenue, just play Q1 & Q3 (or Q2 & Q4) games until conference tournament. Exception might be some in-season tournaments at conference sites.

If you are going to play all of your quad opponents and all of another quad wouldn't it work better just to have two divisions of 8? That way you have two divisional champs to play in the one championship game. I may just not be thinking it through though.

(10-11-2021 02:47 PM)pmantiger Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-11-2021 01:31 PM)Tiger87 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-11-2021 11:56 AM)DDrum1961 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-11-2021 10:11 AM)Tiger87 Wrote: [ -> ]I certainly understand CUSA trying to elevate themselves. They have been big losers all along in realignment. But there is no incentive for the AAC or even the Sun to give up good programs to help out CUSA. There are clear gaps between the AAC, the Sun, and CUSA.

It makes more sense for this to be done between the MWC and the AAC, as they will be equal peers after the 3 leave the AAC, and after the MWC possibly loses scheduling with BYU.

Maybe something like one of these two options ... (would both conferences losing some members)

2 8-team Divisions

AAC / East

East Carolina
Memphis
Navy
SMU
South Florida
Temple
Tulane
Tulsa

MWC / West

Air Force
Boise State
Colorado St.
Fresno St.
Nevada
San Diego St.
UNLV
Utah State


or 4 4-team quadrants ( might help out the non-rev sports )

Quad One
East Carolina
Navy
South Florida
Temple

Quad Two
Air Force
Boise State
Colorado St.
Utah State

Quad Three
Memphis
SMU
Tulane
Tulsa

Quad Four
Fresno St.
Nevada
San Diego St.
UNLV

Exactly.
4x4 makes a lot of sense.

Q1 and Q3 play each other in football (same for Q2 & Q4). And play 1 team from each of the other 2 quads each year, rotating every 3rd year. 9 conference games.

Basketball, play within your quad 2x (H/A) and play all other teams once. 18 conference games.

Non-revenue, just play Q1 & Q3 (or Q2 & Q4) games until conference tournament. Exception might be some in-season tournaments at conference sites.

If you are going to play all of your quad opponents and all of another quad wouldn't it work better just to have two divisions of 8? That way you have two divisional champs to play in the one championship game. I may just not be thinking it through though.

The quads help better with non-revenue. Gives you more flexibility to schedule a budget-friendly conference schedule.
For football, though, you want the 2 highest ranked teams playing in the CCG. Even if they are in the same quad or division. That sets you up best for the CFP/Access bowl slot.

(10-11-2021 03:00 PM)Tiger87 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-11-2021 02:47 PM)pmantiger Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-11-2021 01:31 PM)Tiger87 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-11-2021 11:56 AM)DDrum1961 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-11-2021 10:11 AM)Tiger87 Wrote: [ -> ]I certainly understand CUSA trying to elevate themselves. They have been big losers all along in realignment. But there is no incentive for the AAC or even the Sun to give up good programs to help out CUSA. There are clear gaps between the AAC, the Sun, and CUSA.

It makes more sense for this to be done between the MWC and the AAC, as they will be equal peers after the 3 leave the AAC, and after the MWC possibly loses scheduling with BYU.

Maybe something like one of these two options ... (would both conferences losing some members)

2 8-team Divisions

AAC / East

East Carolina
Memphis
Navy
SMU
South Florida
Temple
Tulane
Tulsa

MWC / West

Air Force
Boise State
Colorado St.
Fresno St.
Nevada
San Diego St.
UNLV
Utah State


or 4 4-team quadrants ( might help out the non-rev sports )

Quad One
East Carolina
Navy
South Florida
Temple

Quad Two
Air Force
Boise State
Colorado St.
Utah State

Quad Three
Memphis
SMU
Tulane
Tulsa

Quad Four
Fresno St.
Nevada
San Diego St.
UNLV

Exactly.
4x4 makes a lot of sense.

Q1 and Q3 play each other in football (same for Q2 & Q4). And play 1 team from each of the other 2 quads each year, rotating every 3rd year. 9 conference games.

Basketball, play within your quad 2x (H/A) and play all other teams once. 18 conference games.

Non-revenue, just play Q1 & Q3 (or Q2 & Q4) games until conference tournament. Exception might be some in-season tournaments at conference sites.

If you are going to play all of your quad opponents and all of another quad wouldn't it work better just to have two divisions of 8? That way you have two divisional champs to play in the one championship game. I may just not be thinking it through though.

The quads help better with non-revenue. Gives you more flexibility to schedule a budget-friendly conference schedule.
For football, though, you want the 2 highest ranked teams playing in the CCG. Even if they are in the same quad or division. That sets you up best for the CFP/Access bowl slot.

Trying to "partner" with the MWC to me would be a step up; while partnering with CUSA and the SBC would be a regression in both status and future revenues ...

(10-13-2021 07:07 AM)DDrum1961 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-11-2021 03:00 PM)Tiger87 Wrote: [ -> ]The quads help better with non-revenue. Gives you more flexibility to schedule a budget-friendly conference schedule.
For football, though, you want the 2 highest ranked teams playing in the CCG. Even if they are in the same quad or division. That sets you up best for the CFP/Access bowl slot.

Trying to "partner" with the MWC to me would be a step up; while partnering with CUSA and the SBC would be a regression in both status and future revenues ...

Post-defection, the MWC will likely be the higher rated conference (depending on who the AAC adds). But at the same time, the AAC will still be the higher $$ conference due to higher fan interest and tv markets. So there is something in it for both sides.

I just checked Sagarin's conference ratings. Not that his is best, but they are most easily accessible and seem pretty good. So far this year, the G5 is:
MWC 67.79
AAC 66.79
MAC 63.85
Sun 60.87
CUSA 59.72

If you remove the 3 defections from the AAC, with no replacements, we slip a few points but the order stays the same:
MWC 67.79
AAC 64.17
MAC 63.85
Sun 60.87
CUSA 59.72

If the AAC adds (for example) UAB, UTSA, Coastal Carolina, and Louisiana - the order stays the same but we slightly improve on our numbers from this season that include the 3 defectors:
MWC 67.79
AAC 66.83
MAC 63.85
Sun 58.70
CUSA 57.72

Looking at these numbers for CUSA, you can see how bad they've become. It's no wonder they want to merge with the AAC. Their bottom feeders are killing them. Southern Miss - who many here want to get back with - is ranked #164 in Sagarin this year. There are about 40 FCS programs rated higher, and only 4 FBS programs rated lower.

Another tidbit...The lowest rated FBS program? UConn at #200.

(10-11-2021 06:10 AM)LotsOfBull99 Wrote: [ -> ]It’s a trap!