CSNbbs

Full Version: What is the best number of schools for a college athletic conference?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
(08-16-2022 04:10 PM)#1 pick Wrote: [ -> ]14 teams is ideal for the new landscape in Men's football and Basketball.

Maybe if you are P5.

At the G5 level there just is not enough money to split the pie that many ways.*

Fourteen team leagues also tend to have big bottoms and mediocre middles. The amount of "cellar" teams (4-5) can REALLY weigh down the rest of the conference, thereby lowering ratings/rankings for your top group.

Another factor (often overlooked) is that it is DIFFICULT to get 14 presidents and 14 AD's to agree/cooperate and be on the same page about conference issues {see note below}.

There is too much room to "hide" or get "lost" in a fourteen team G5 league.

*The only exception might be IF you are the clear G5 leader and have separation from the other G5-- maybe.

Ask some other C-USA (formerly 14) posters for their opinion-- most will agree it was just too big to work at the non P5 level.


NOTE--- Word has been coming out in private AND out in the open about how MANY of the problems in C-USA were because of disagreements-- lack of compromise-- lack of majority consensus, etc., etc.. among the school's 14 presidents. One block of leaders wanted a certain direction and another group did not.

There have been many references to how the new group of nine have been UNITED and how it has been a "breath of fresh air" compared to the former group of fourteen.
(08-16-2022 04:25 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-16-2022 04:10 PM)#1 pick Wrote: [ -> ]14 teams is ideal for the new landscape in Men's football and Basketball.

Maybe if you are P5.

At the G5 level there just is not enough money to split the pie that many ways.*

Fourteen team leagues also tend to have big bottoms and mediocre middles. The amount of "cellar" teams (4-5) can REALLY weigh down the rest of the conference, thereby lowering ratings/rankings for your top group.

There is too much room to "hide" or get "lost" in a fourteen team G5 league.

*The only exception might be IF you are the clear G5 leader and have separation from the other G5-- maybe.

Ask some other C-USA (formerly 14) posters for their opinion-- most will agree it was just to big to work at the non P5 level.

I've been told that I've maybe made my stance clear on the subject. . .


Of course, that's never stopped me before. 03-wink

I will say that the SB model isn't a terrible idea. It's obviously not my preference, but a really big (14 or 16) conference with two tight divisions (essentially the old idea of a conference - so two conferences that schedule a game a year with each other and pretend to be one conference for media deals) would work ok for the practical stuff. This was my constant reply to the ODU and Marshall fans about "all those trips to Texas." They didn't really have to come to Texas that often, or if they did it was fluky reasons like UAB taking a 2 year sabbatical and bad luck on the rotation. This was possible because we had so many teams that we were able to have two big 7 team divisions.

The geography can work with a 14 team conference in the abstract (and the 'belt will be a good example of it working in reality). At least for the travel/interest/tickets part. But the old CUSA may be a case study in how it doesn't work for the wrong group of teams. Or maybe overall for any group of teams when it comes to building a tight, cohesive conference with an identity. SB may soon see this between East and West. I think it's risky for the overall conference strength (especially in basketball). And for the PER SCHOOL media money? I can't imagine it's much better than having fewer schools. Not for the G5.

For the new CUSA, we're already too broken for 5 schools to fix anything. There aren't 5 schools that give us a better PER SCHOOL media deal (or even break even, I imagine). There aren't 5 schools that do anything for fan interest across the board. There aren't 5 schools that improve our overall strength in football or basketball (or anything, I'd imagine, outside of like bowling or something).

Heck, I'd contend (and I know, I know, often and loudly I already have) that you could replace the 5's in that paragraph with 1's as far as I'm concerned, much less 3's (to get to 12).

You might be able to save on travel costs with 12 or 14 or 16 and geographic divisions or pods, but you'd almost certainly lose ground on whatever savings you found by splitting the playoff money (from football and basketball) more ways. And you're never going to find enough teams to make El Paso/Las Cruces a cheap trip (or Miami the other way).


TLDR: #1 pick is wrong (mostly), Topstraight is right for the reasons they listed and then some, and inudesu is obnoxiously like a dog with a bone on the topic (as everyone already knew)
inutech, please read the "note" at the end of my post (edited and added later-you may have missed).

Have you heard the same thing about the former 14 presidents having zero consensus compared to the new group of nine being on the same page??
(08-16-2022 05:11 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote: [ -> ]inutech, please read the "note" at the end of my post (edited and added later-you may have missed).

Have you heard the same thing about the former 14 presidents having zero consensus compared to the new group of nine being on the same page??

I have no insight into the inner workings of the conference before or now but this makes a lot of sense and does seem to explain some things. Heck, even the fans on our message board align with that line of thinking.
(08-16-2022 06:34 PM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ]
(08-16-2022 05:11 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote: [ -> ]inutech, please read the "note" at the end of my post (edited and added later-you may have missed).

Have you heard the same thing about the former 14 presidents having zero consensus compared to the new group of nine being on the same page??

I have no insight into the inner workings of the conference before or now but this makes a lot of sense and does seem to explain some things. Heck, even the fans on our message board align with that line of thinking.

Based off general comments from Todd Stewart (AD) plus other quotes and word of mouth.
(08-16-2022 05:11 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote: [ -> ]inutech, please read the "note" at the end of my post (edited and added later-you may have missed).

Have you heard the same thing about the former 14 presidents having zero consensus compared to the new group of nine being on the same page??

Yeah, it makes sense. I don't have inside information and take message board posts with a grain of salt always, but we've certainly heard rumors about disagreements about merging with another conference, about leadership decisions, etc.

As to the current 9, I suspect everyone is just trying to put the best possible face on the situation. I think we're going to see differing interests with this group as well (but in theory consensus will be easier to find with 9 than 14).
Further time goes along the more Im in the 9 camp. At first I was in the add more camp but really believe CUSA will emerge as one of the stronger G5 or Little 8 conferences. Of course if Little 8 we will be lower in the prestige rankings.
Pages: 1 2 3
Reference URL's