CSNbbs

Full Version: B1G and Pac trickle down
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Are you guys concerned about the trickle down ramifications of the B1G moves on the Pac 12?

If the Pac keeps enough schools to remain viable, the only place they can add from is the MWC. Inevitably, the MWC would end up looking at CUSA and Sunbelt western schools to backfill. I would have to believe schools like UTEP and NMSU would be considered, along with Texas State from the Sunbelt.

Does CUSA have any options in place if they lose a couple of schools? If the Sunbelt lost Texas State, would they come after another CUSA school ?
(07-01-2022 09:49 AM)Tmac13 Wrote: [ -> ]Are you guys concerned about the trickle down ramifications of the B1G moves on the Pac 12?

If the Pac keeps enough schools to remain viable, the only place they can add from is the MWC. Inevitably, the MWC would end up looking at CUSA and Sunbelt western schools to backfill. I would have to believe schools like UTEP and NMSU would be considered, along with Texas State from the Sunbelt.

Does CUSA have any options in place if they lose a couple of schools? If the Sunbelt lost Texas State, would they come after another CUSA school ?

As a JSU fan it could help bring in Eastern Kentucky or Kennesaw State and maybe another eastern school if UTEP and New Mexico State leave since the conference doesn’t need to go as far west.

Granted UTEP and New Mexico State helped bring up the basketball rankings.

Look I’m happy being out of the OVC still at this point
If the MWC is raided then it could be a positive affect on the conference by tightening the footprint and putting NMSU and UTEP in a western conference where they are a better fit. If the MWC lost 3 or 4 then it might go further east to La Tech if LT would be interested.
(07-01-2022 09:49 AM)Tmac13 Wrote: [ -> ]Are you guys concerned about the trickle down ramifications of the B1G moves on the Pac 12?

If the Pac keeps enough schools to remain viable, the only place they can add from is the MWC. Inevitably, the MWC would end up looking at CUSA and Sunbelt western schools to backfill. I would have to believe schools like UTEP and NMSU would be considered, along with Texas State from the Sunbelt.

Does CUSA have any options in place if they lose a couple of schools? If the Sunbelt lost Texas State, would they come after another CUSA school ?

You are ASSUMING the PAC survives. Big leap.
(07-01-2022 12:34 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-01-2022 09:49 AM)Tmac13 Wrote: [ -> ]Are you guys concerned about the trickle down ramifications of the B1G moves on the Pac 12?

If the Pac keeps enough schools to remain viable, the only place they can add from is the MWC. Inevitably, the MWC would end up looking at CUSA and Sunbelt western schools to backfill. I would have to believe schools like UTEP and NMSU would be considered, along with Texas State from the Sunbelt.

Does CUSA have any options in place if they lose a couple of schools? If the Sunbelt lost Texas State, would they come after another CUSA school ?

You are ASSUMING the PAC survives. Big leap.

Well he did say if the PAC stays viable.
Quote:You are ASSUMING the PAC survives. Big leap.

It may or may not survive in name, but those remaining 8-10 teams (pending what Oregon and Washington do) will either go somewhere or pull from somewhere. That will have ramifications. It's hard to say what those will be.
If UTEP and NMSU were moved to MWC and CUSA picked up the right FCS schools, not sure CUSA would be threaten by SBC. If CUSA does look any eastern schools I would rather JSU be in CUSA vs SBC.
(07-01-2022 05:05 PM)Gemofthehills Wrote: [ -> ]If UTEP and NMSU were moved to MWC and CUSA picked up the right FCS schools, not sure CUSA would be threaten by SBC. If CUSA does look any eastern schools I would rather JSU be in CUSA vs SBC.

If the SBC lost Texas State, there would be no shortage of C-USA programs looking to bolt, Jacksonville State included.
(07-01-2022 10:09 PM)freshtop Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-01-2022 05:05 PM)Gemofthehills Wrote: [ -> ]If UTEP and NMSU were moved to MWC and CUSA picked up the right FCS schools, not sure CUSA would be threaten by SBC. If CUSA does look any eastern schools I would rather JSU be in CUSA vs SBC.

If the SBC lost Texas State, there would be no shortage of C-USA programs looking to bolt, Jacksonville State included.

Might would but if the others stayed I would rather be with the CUSA group of schools vs the SBC group. If schools start leaving and the make up is different then who knows which would be the best set up. JSU being one of the new teams to FBS, feel sure we will take whatever happens and move along.
I was looking at the Director's Cup and the overall health of some FCS programs wanting to become FBS, possibly in CUSA.

#80. NC A&T
#93. Stephen F. Austin
#104. Delaware
#122. ETSU
#124. Kennesaw State
#161. Richmond
#193. Chattanooga
#196. Mercer
#229. McNeese State
#229. Jackson State
#251. Eastern Kentucky
#264. Lamar

Kennesaw State and Stephen F. Austin seem like the best options. Tarleton State was not listed because of being division 2, I believe. They are obviously an option. I didn't expect EKU to be so far down. Wish ETSU had FBS aspirations.
(07-02-2022 10:08 AM)sstaedtler88 Wrote: [ -> ]I was looking at the Director's Cup and the overall health of some FCS programs wanting to become FBS, possibly in CUSA.

#80. NC A&T
#93. Stephen F. Austin
#104. Delaware
#122. ETSU
#124. Kennesaw State
#161. Richmond
#193. Chattanooga
#196. Mercer
#229. McNeese State
#229. Jackson State
#251. Eastern Kentucky
#264. Lamar

Kennesaw State and Stephen F. Austin seem like the best options. Tarleton State was not listed because of being division 2, I believe. They are obviously an option. I didn't expect EKU to be so far down. Wish ETSU had FBS aspirations.

Although a nice ranking system, the Directors Cup is a skewed system for weighing success at the conference level. It only measures how well a school does in NCAA Championships. For example, a school could have a single golf player and a tennis player win NCAA games and get lots of points and that school not win any conference championships but...another school could win the mens and womens basketball, football, and baseball conference championship but lose post season. The school with golf and tennis player would be ranked high in the Directors Cup but the school with all the conference championships wouldn't.
I'm a little surprised as well. Our men's XC is often nationally ranked, our outdoor track finished 30th nationally at the NCAAs, and we had an individual national champion in Steeplechase this year. Perhaps it will help in the future that we're bringing back men's and women's tennis after a hiatus of several seasons.

Basketball should be taking a step forward as well. 247 has our incoming class ranked 64th nationally, which is higher than any current or future C-USA member. It's the best class in school history, so I'm expecting a big season on the hardwood if we can stay healthy.
not worried
(07-02-2022 10:19 AM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-02-2022 10:08 AM)sstaedtler88 Wrote: [ -> ]I was looking at the Director's Cup and the overall health of some FCS programs wanting to become FBS, possibly in CUSA.

#80. NC A&T
#93. Stephen F. Austin
#104. Delaware
#122. ETSU
#124. Kennesaw State
#161. Richmond
#193. Chattanooga
#196. Mercer
#229. McNeese State
#229. Jackson State
#251. Eastern Kentucky
#264. Lamar

Kennesaw State and Stephen F. Austin seem like the best options. Tarleton State was not listed because of being division 2, I believe. They are obviously an option. I didn't expect EKU to be so far down. Wish ETSU had FBS aspirations.

Although a nice ranking system, the Directors Cup is a skewed system for weighing success at the conference level. It only measures how well a school does in NCAA Championships. For example, a school could have a single golf player and a tennis player win NCAA games and get lots of points and that school not win any conference championships but...another school could win the mens and womens basketball, football, and baseball conference championship but lose post season. The school with golf and tennis player would be ranked high in the Directors Cup but the school with all the conference championships wouldn't.

Tarleton State isn't listed because they didn't win any WAC championships. Only a couple of sports provide an avenue for gaining Directors Cup points for non-champions, and for non-P5s, these opportunities are even more scarce.

WKUApollo is totally correct that the Directors Cup is flawed.

Under the current system, a team winning 20+ basketball games in a single bid conference gets 0 points if they don't win the conference tournament. (This happened to Liberty this past year, and would've happened to Jacksonville State if Bellarmine had been eligible for the Dance.)

Meanwhile, mediocre teams from multi-bid conferences continue to rack up points in the postseason. It's horrifically skewed toward the P5s, and other than recognizing teams winning the most championships and/or postseason games within each conference, it serves no other useful purpose. It's certainly no way to gauge relative strength of athletic programs between conferences.

A better system would simply rank regular season conference finishes for all sports a school sponsors. If your baseball team finishes 1st in a 10-team conference, you get 10 points, 9 points for 2nd, 8 points for 3rd, and so on. Then, add bonus points for conference tournament and NCAA tournament wins.

Multi-bid conferences would still have an advantage, but at least solid teams from lower-tier conferences wouldn't go from conference tournament favorite to ZERO just because of one bad game.

The regular season would matter, conference tournament success would still be rewarded, and teams performing well in postseason NCAA tournaments would still receive a nice boost.

It's a nice dream.
(07-05-2022 11:21 AM)whupemall Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-02-2022 10:19 AM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-02-2022 10:08 AM)sstaedtler88 Wrote: [ -> ]I was looking at the Director's Cup and the overall health of some FCS programs wanting to become FBS, possibly in CUSA.

#80. NC A&T
#93. Stephen F. Austin
#104. Delaware
#122. ETSU
#124. Kennesaw State
#161. Richmond
#193. Chattanooga
#196. Mercer
#229. McNeese State
#229. Jackson State
#251. Eastern Kentucky
#264. Lamar

Kennesaw State and Stephen F. Austin seem like the best options. Tarleton State was not listed because of being division 2, I believe. They are obviously an option. I didn't expect EKU to be so far down. Wish ETSU had FBS aspirations.

Although a nice ranking system, the Directors Cup is a skewed system for weighing success at the conference level. It only measures how well a school does in NCAA Championships. For example, a school could have a single golf player and a tennis player win NCAA games and get lots of points and that school not win any conference championships but...another school could win the mens and womens basketball, football, and baseball conference championship but lose post season. The school with golf and tennis player would be ranked high in the Directors Cup but the school with all the conference championships wouldn't.

Tarleton State isn't listed because they didn't win any WAC championships. Only a couple of sports provide an avenue for gaining Directors Cup points for non-champions, and for non-P5s, these opportunities are even more scarce.

WKUApollo is totally correct that the Directors Cup is flawed.

Under the current system, a team winning 20+ basketball games in a single bid conference gets 0 points if they don't win the conference tournament. (This happened to Liberty this past year, and would've happened to Jacksonville State if Bellarmine had been eligible for the Dance.)

Meanwhile, mediocre teams from multi-bid conferences continue to rack up points in the postseason. It's horrifically skewed toward the P5s, and other than recognizing teams winning the most championships and/or postseason games within each conference, it serves no other useful purpose. It's certainly no way to gauge relative strength of athletic programs between conferences.

A better system would simply rank regular season conference finishes for all sports a school sponsors. If your baseball team finishes 1st in a 10-team conference, you get 10 points, 9 points for 2nd, 8 points for 3rd, and so on. Then, add bonus points for conference tournament and NCAA tournament wins.

Multi-bid conferences would still have an advantage, but at least solid teams from lower-tier conferences wouldn't go from conference tournament favorite to ZERO just because of one bad game.

The regular season would matter, conference tournament success would still be rewarded, and teams performing well in postseason NCAA tournaments would still receive a nice boost.

It's a nice dream.

Tarleton has not been allowed to compete for conference championship while in transition, but recently they made a conference rule where we will be allowed to play in the basketball post season tourney next year, not sure about the other sports. But Football we are not allowed to go to playoffs or compete in WAC/ASUN challenge.
(07-14-2022 06:17 AM)Spolovilo4EVER Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-05-2022 11:21 AM)whupemall Wrote: [ -> ]Tarleton State isn't listed because they didn't win any WAC championships. Only a couple of sports provide an avenue for gaining Directors Cup points for non-champions, and for non-P5s, these opportunities are even more scarce.

Tarleton has not been allowed to compete for conference championship while in transition, but recently they made a conference rule where we will be allowed to play in the basketball post season tourney next year, not sure about the other sports. But Football we are not allowed to go to playoffs or compete in WAC/ASUN challenge.

Not disagreeing, but my point wasn't that Tarleton didn't deserve points. I was simply stating that since they have no championships, they have no points. That's the problem with the Director's Cup.

A school can be incredibly strong in every sport, finish in 2nd place across the board in football, mens and womens hoops, baseball, softball, volleyball, golf, tennis, everything. But especially in single-bid conferences, if none of those teams gets an NCAA postseason bid, their accumulated Director's Cup points will be ZERO.

It's a solid system for rewarding the school who wins the most championships and/or postseason games.

It's a stupid way to rank athletic departments.
Reference URL's