(07-31-2015 02:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 01:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The top G5's earn about 10% of the media income their P5 counterparts. Other than the top 2 G5 earners, the rest of G5 conferences earns 5% or less of their P5 counterparts. If a G5 nationwide could raise that to near 50%---that would be a HUGE win.

Having too many schools to divide up the TV money means that the per-school income will never get that high.

Think about it: For an 18-school G5 conference to make 50% as much per school in TV money as the 10-school Big 12, the G5 conference would have to be getting 90% of the total TV dollars per year that the Big 12 gets. You know that's not going to happen.

If making TV money is really the only reason to form a new G5 conference, then ask well-connected TV consultants what the most valuable 10-team combination is, 12 teams at the absolute max, and go with that.

Because to go nationwide, you will need divisions that are regional enough to allow for economical Olympic sports play. Most of your Olympic sports play will be within the division. For an 18 team league to make 50% of the P5, it has to earn 140 million a year. That's 7.7 million a team. For the teams in a national conference to earn 50% of their P5 counterparts it would have to earn 180 million (10 million each). The Big-12 gets 200 million---but that's because it only has 10 teams. The rest of the P5 gets 280 million or more each year (50% would be 140 million). By the way, that's the ultimate goal. My guess is the league would get a small raise (maybe 3-4 million a year to start). Once it proved itself and became the most dominant, most recognized, most watched, most followed G5 league---then it might bump up to 30-50% of the P5.

(07-31-2015 03:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 02:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 01:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The top G5's earn about 10% of the media income their P5 counterparts. Other than the top 2 G5 earners, the rest of G5 conferences earns 5% or less of their P5 counterparts. If a G5 nationwide could raise that to near 50%---that would be a HUGE win.

Having too many schools to divide up the TV money means that the per-school income will never get that high.

Think about it: For an 18-school G5 conference to make 50% as much per school in TV money as the 10-school Big 12, the G5 conference would have to be getting 90% of the total TV dollars per year that the Big 12 gets. You know that's not going to happen.

If making TV money is really the only reason to form a new G5 conference, then ask well-connected TV consultants what the most valuable 10-team combination is, 12 teams at the absolute max, and go with that.

Yeah but that's lame to shred up all the G5 conferences just to get a 10 team "best of G5" that still won't be at the top level.

Adding 6 MW teams to the AAC is the only option to do anything like that right now. That would work out fine for Idaho and NM State. The MW would move on with 8 (more if they want to take some Big Sky schools or grab Texas St and UTSA).

(07-31-2015 03:28 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Because to go nationwide, you will need divisions that are regional enough to allow for economical Olympic sports play. Most of your Olympic sports play will be within the division. For an 18 team league to make 50% of the P5, it has to earn 140 million a year. That's 7.7 million a team. For the teams in a national conference to earn 50% of their P5 counterparts it would have to earn 180 million (10 million each). The Big-12 gets 200 million---but that's because it only has 10 teams. The rest of the P5 gets 280 million or more each year (50% would be 140 million). By the way, that's the ultimate goal. My guess is the league would get a small raise (maybe 3-4 million a year to start). Once it proved itself and became the most dominant, most recognized, most watched, most followed G5 league---then it might bump up to 30-50% of the P5.

$7.7 million is at the top-end of what the best of these institutions make right now from media deals (BYU and Boise St.). So, there's a long way to go to get the type of media deal that would pay that amount to the average conference member.

A conference network, which would have plenty of inventory if you had 18 teams in the conference, might help close the gap....and probably a better option than games on ESPNNews and CBSSN.

The dollar amounts for the existing media deals are small enough that you can actually achieve similar revenues by selling an additional 7-10K tickets per game or by bumping ticket prices by 20% (for stadiums that already perform at or near capacity)...which is sad.

(07-31-2015 01:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The C7 were long gone when Louisville left. Their movements behind the scenes via 3rd parties after the Cardinal's exit were a significant reason the "numbers" were lower than expected. You don't really think they left without knowing exactly how much they would be worth do you?

It is hard to talk with you when you don't actually know what you are talking about. Louisville and Rutgers left first (announced leaving). Then Tulane was added (and ECU football only). Then they started getting numbers. Then the C7 left. Not the other way around. Then Boise and SDST left.

Done here.

In a word, "no".

There isn't nearly enough brand-name power in that roster to get a guaranteed BCS-level bowl slot.

(07-29-2015 02:16 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  if they could guarantee a spot in one of the New Year 6 Bowls. Would this conference be guaranteed a spot?
WEST
Boise State (Football Only)
BYU (Football Only)
Tulsa
Houston
SMU
Tulane
Navy (Football Only)

EAST
Connecticut
Temple
Cincinnati
East Carolina
UCF
South Florida
Memphis

The Fiesta, Cotton, and Peach Bowl are all open. Could the American come up with a deal that if the east division winner wins the Conference they go to the Peach Bowl (when not in playoffs) and the West Division Winner go to the Fiesta Bowl (when not in playoffs). ESPN owns the rights to BYU and the American plus the New Years 6 Bowl Games could they make this happen to create more eyes for their American and BYU content that they got cheap. In this deal BYU would still get there $6 million a year from ESPN but would just help them with scheduling in November and guarantee them an access bowl (just like Utah has).

Now the question what does the bowl games get out of it. That I do not know.

(07-31-2015 05:20 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 01:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The C7 were long gone when Louisville left. Their movements behind the scenes via 3rd parties after the Cardinal's exit were a significant reason the "numbers" were lower than expected. You don't really think they left without knowing exactly how much they would be worth do you?

It is hard to talk with you when you don't actually know what you are talking about. Louisville and Rutgers left first (announced leaving). Then Tulane was added (and ECU football only). Then they started getting numbers. Then the C7 left. Not the other way around. Then Boise and SDST left.

Done here.

lol. So you admit that the number hunting which undermined Aresco negotiation process actually began even earlier in the negotiations than I thought. Thanks for making my point for me. ....and I know the order the teams exited from the AAC --thank you very much.

No MWC schools will move to the AAC and vice versa. If another round of realignment comes it's a different story.

(07-31-2015 03:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 02:32 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 01:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 01:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 10:30 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Said the Southwest Conference---just a few years before they imploded.

Seriously, if regional doesn't even always work when you are using P5 parts----hows it going to work using G5 schools?

Sure, the right balance of footprint and regionalism works for the P5----but the pieces that are left behind by the P5 for the G5 to build with are not of the same quality. You cant use the same general regional model and expect to generate any significant value. Frankly, I'm still of the belief that a nationwide G5 conference is the only way to generate significant income using G5 parts. You have to try something different. If small regional G5 conferences were going to generate any significant income, it would have happened by now. It hasn't and its not going to. The market has spoken----multiple times.... through multiple contract cycles...with multiple G5 confereces...with multiple conference lineups. The answer has always been the same. The best G5 regional conferences are worth about 10% of their P5 counterparts (the less well established G5's are worth even less). Time to try a different model.

What is your definition for "work" and "success"??

G5 conferences aren't going to be battling for CFP playoff spots. The money they earn from the CFP is set. They're never going to have lucrative media contracts.

I think they all "work" just fine now, as they are.

The top G5's earn about 10% of the media income their P5 counterparts. Other than the top 2 G5 earners, the rest of G5 conferences earns 5% or less of their P5 counterparts. If a G5 nationwide could raise that to near 50%---that would be a HUGE win. Getting between 25%-50% would be pretty darn good. In an era of law suits and autonomy, the G5's are going top need that extra income to stay at the top level of football. My personal feeling is a nationwide G5 would be a lifeboat that will allow a handful of G5 schools to survive in the top level of college football.

"Top level" is very subjective. I claim the "best of G5" would still not be at the top level, at least in terms of public perception and head coaching salaries.

Hence why Art Briles and Kevin Sumlin are no longer at Houston.


In my opinion, which I think is the same opinion as those who control the CFP and the top conferences, there is no compelling reason to allow a "best of G5" conference, that traverses the nation at the expense of the rest of the G5, to exist.

This has zero to do with the P5 and or the rest of the G5. It has nothing to do with "top level" of any of that subjective stuff. It just a conference expanding----No different from to the Sunbelt deciding to add JMU to their league. Expanding a conference footprint to a nationwide footprint is simply a way to create more interest in a G5 conference by packaging more fan bases over a larger footprint. If it works, these schools would increase their media value. It would NOT give them better access to the playoffs or push the rest of the G5 to lower level. It has nothing to do with that. Its just a media strategy.

No FBS conference spans more than two time zones. Clearly, there's no compelling reason to do that. Which is correct.

You claim creating a G5 conference that spans all four time zones would create more interest in the conference. I disagree.

I see no reason why people would pay more attention just because a group of schools from across the country decided to play each other every year.

(07-31-2015 03:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 03:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 02:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 01:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The top G5's earn about 10% of the media income their P5 counterparts. Other than the top 2 G5 earners, the rest of G5 conferences earns 5% or less of their P5 counterparts. If a G5 nationwide could raise that to near 50%---that would be a HUGE win.

Having too many schools to divide up the TV money means that the per-school income will never get that high.

Think about it: For an 18-school G5 conference to make 50% as much per school in TV money as the 10-school Big 12, the G5 conference would have to be getting 90% of the total TV dollars per year that the Big 12 gets. You know that's not going to happen.

If making TV money is really the only reason to form a new G5 conference, then ask well-connected TV consultants what the most valuable 10-team combination is, 12 teams at the absolute max, and go with that.

Yeah but that's lame to shred up all the G5 conferences just to get a 10 team "best of G5" that still won't be at the top level.

Adding 6 MW teams to the AAC is the only option to do anything like that right now. That would work out fine for Idaho and NM State. The MW would move on with 8 (more if they want to take some Big Sky schools or grab Texas St and UTSA).

Adding 6 to the 12 (football) AAC does not fit the 10-12 context that we were discussing.

Creating a "best of G5" with 10-12 members would result in shredding up the current G5 conferences. And for what? No significant gain.

(07-31-2015 09:25 PM)UNLVFan90 Wrote:  No MWC schools will move to the AAC and vice versa. If another round of realignment comes it's a different story.

^This^

(08-01-2015 02:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 03:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 03:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 02:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 01:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The top G5's earn about 10% of the media income their P5 counterparts. Other than the top 2 G5 earners, the rest of G5 conferences earns 5% or less of their P5 counterparts. If a G5 nationwide could raise that to near 50%---that would be a HUGE win.

Having too many schools to divide up the TV money means that the per-school income will never get that high.

Think about it: For an 18-school G5 conference to make 50% as much per school in TV money as the 10-school Big 12, the G5 conference would have to be getting 90% of the total TV dollars per year that the Big 12 gets. You know that's not going to happen.

If making TV money is really the only reason to form a new G5 conference, then ask well-connected TV consultants what the most valuable 10-team combination is, 12 teams at the absolute max, and go with that.

Yeah but that's lame to shred up all the G5 conferences just to get a 10 team "best of G5" that still won't be at the top level.

Adding 6 MW teams to the AAC is the only option to do anything like that right now. That would work out fine for Idaho and NM State. The MW would move on with 8 (more if they want to take some Big Sky schools or grab Texas St and UTSA).

Adding 6 to the 12 (football) AAC does not fit the 10-12 context that we were discussing.

Creating a "best of G5" with 10-12 members would result in shredding up the current G5 conferences. And for what? No significant gain.

I never said anything about a 10-12 team concept. In fact, I don't think a national 10-12 team concept is viable because it would create tremendous travel issues. My plan is a minimum of 18 teams (3 6-team divisions---eastern, central, and western). The concept would be a 8 game conference football schedule (5 in division, 3 cross-divisional). Top 2 division winner play in the CCG.

For basketball, you have a home-and-home within the division (10 games), plus 3 cross divisional games with each of the other 2 divisions (6 games--of which just 3 would be on the road). That's a 16 game conference schedule with reasonable travel. Non-revenue sports would play primarily within the division.

Such a structure gives a conference the same regional aspects you claim are so important while expanding the footprint to create a rooting interest in most any region of the country and combining more G5 fan bases (18 rather just 12) to attract a larger pool of interested viewers (which would be closer to a P5 viewer pool rather than a G5 viewer pool).

Here's the thing---the folks that keep harping on the virtues of the regional conference keep saying i's the best model----but contract earnings over the last two decades do not back it up. In 1996, CUSA teams made about 50% of what the typical P5 school earned in media. Today, CUSA teams make about 5% of what the typical P5 school earns. The G5 conferences can hang on to the past regional conference model, but its a proven loser for the G5 in the current college sports landscape. The regional model has done nothing over the past 2 decades but increase the gap between the haves and have-nots.

My feeling is---its time to try something different. Even if the national model fails, so what? We are losing ground every year under the regional model. We KNOW its not going to work. If the national model works to close the gap a bit---GREAT. If not, the national conference can separate by division and easily reconstitute itself as 3 separate regional conferences (the 3 divisions would just add a few teams to fill out their ranks). As long as 6 teams have played Olympic sports together for 6 years then they qualify for immediate NCAA auto-bids. In a worst case scenario---the members of any national conference will be no worse off than they are now. If the national conference works well, they may be MUCH better off than they are now. There is just nothing to lose at this point.

(08-01-2015 02:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 03:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 03:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 02:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 01:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The top G5's earn about 10% of the media income their P5 counterparts. Other than the top 2 G5 earners, the rest of G5 conferences earns 5% or less of their P5 counterparts. If a G5 nationwide could raise that to near 50%---that would be a HUGE win.

Having too many schools to divide up the TV money means that the per-school income will never get that high.

Think about it: For an 18-school G5 conference to make 50% as much per school in TV money as the 10-school Big 12, the G5 conference would have to be getting 90% of the total TV dollars per year that the Big 12 gets. You know that's not going to happen.

If making TV money is really the only reason to form a new G5 conference, then ask well-connected TV consultants what the most valuable 10-team combination is, 12 teams at the absolute max, and go with that.

Yeah but that's lame to shred up all the G5 conferences just to get a 10 team "best of G5" that still won't be at the top level.

Adding 6 MW teams to the AAC is the only option to do anything like that right now. That would work out fine for Idaho and NM State. The MW would move on with 8 (more if they want to take some Big Sky schools or grab Texas St and UTSA).

Adding 6 to the 12 (football) AAC does not fit the 10-12 context that we were discussing.

Creating a "best of G5" with 10-12 members would result in shredding up the current G5 conferences. And for what? No significant gain.

G5 conferences have been shredded in the past for much less gain than I am proposing. In just the last round of realignment, the old Big East was essentially destroyed (and reborn as a G5), CUSA lost 66% of its membership, the Sunbelt lost almost half its members, and the WAC was completely destroyed as an FBS league. No G5 would be destroyed by my proposal. The MW would lose 6, but would easily survive by adding NMS and Idaho. Truth be told, it actually would save a pair of FBS programs that are in serious trouble right now.

(07-30-2015 09:40 PM)connecticutguy Wrote:  If BYU and Boise don't want AAC membership, why not add Rice, Army and Air Force. It would help to create a conference with academic excellence and tradition.

That's the first proposed version of a BigEast/AAC I've seen that seriously piques my interest, as a Rice fan.
Not sure if it does too much to move the needle on a TV deal - but move one of the Military bowls to NYD and maybe you can grow that to a major bowl under the premise of the OP.
Another downside is you are splitting the CFP TV share amongst more schools. Which might be worth it if it increased your chances of getting the #1 G5 share.

(07-29-2015 02:16 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  if they could guarantee a spot in one of the New Year 6 Bowls. Would this conference be guaranteed a spot?
WEST
Boise State (Football Only)
BYU (Football Only)
Tulsa
Houston
SMU
Tulane
Navy (Football Only)

EAST
Connecticut
Temple
Cincinnati
East Carolina
UCF
South Florida
Memphis

The Fiesta, Cotton, and Peach Bowl are all open. Could the American come up with a deal that if the east division winner wins the Conference they go to the Peach Bowl (when not in playoffs) and the West Division Winner go to the Fiesta Bowl (when not in playoffs). ESPN owns the rights to BYU and the American plus the New Years 6 Bowl Games could they make this happen to create more eyes for their American and BYU content that they got cheap. In this deal BYU would still get there $6 million a year from ESPN but would just help them with scheduling in November and guarantee them an access bowl (just like Utah has).

Now the question what does the bowl games get out of it. That I do not know.

no

you would need to do a best off (which list always brings about butthurt from somebody).

Something like:

AAC East:
UC
UCONN
Navy
UCF
ECU
Memphis

AAC West:
Boise
BYU
SDSU
Air Force
Houston
Colorado State or Fresno

This conference has good markets, solid football and good hoops. In time it could be a NY6 Auto bowl league...but even then it would be a long shot.

You would need to drop Wyoming, new Mexico, Tulane, Tulsa, San Jose, and the other dregs. That would never fly.


What I like about this is, instead of the mwc/aac battling each other, it eliminates that and combines the best creating at least a true tweener conference that some years could have two or three ranked teams in football and most years would have five NCAA bids. Odds are the winner of the conference, most years, would go to the access bowl. This would also be a selling point for recruits.

(08-01-2015 06:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 02:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 03:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 03:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 02:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Having too many schools to divide up the TV money means that the per-school income will never get that high.

Think about it: For an 18-school G5 conference to make 50% as much per school in TV money as the 10-school Big 12, the G5 conference would have to be getting 90% of the total TV dollars per year that the Big 12 gets. You know that's not going to happen.

If making TV money is really the only reason to form a new G5 conference, then ask well-connected TV consultants what the most valuable 10-team combination is, 12 teams at the absolute max, and go with that.

Yeah but that's lame to shred up all the G5 conferences just to get a 10 team "best of G5" that still won't be at the top level.

Adding 6 MW teams to the AAC is the only option to do anything like that right now. That would work out fine for Idaho and NM State. The MW would move on with 8 (more if they want to take some Big Sky schools or grab Texas St and UTSA).

Adding 6 to the 12 (football) AAC does not fit the 10-12 context that we were discussing.

Creating a "best of G5" with 10-12 members would result in shredding up the current G5 conferences. And for what? No significant gain.

I never said anything about a 10-12 team concept. In fact, I don't think a national 10-12 team concept is viable because it would create tremendous travel issues. My plan is a minimum of 18 teams (3 6-team divisions---eastern, central, and western). The concept would be a 8 game conference football schedule (5 in division, 3 cross-divisional). Top 2 division winner play in the CCG.

For basketball, you have a home-and-home within the division (10 games), plus 3 cross divisional games with each of the other 2 divisions (6 games--of which just 3 would be on the road). That's a 16 game conference schedule with reasonable travel. Non-revenue sports would play primarily within the division.

Such a structure gives a conference the same regional aspects you claim are so important while expanding the footprint to create a rooting interest in most any region of the country and combining more G5 fan bases (18 rather just 12) to attract a larger pool of interested viewers (which would be closer to a P5 viewer pool rather than a G5 viewer pool).

Here's the thing---the folks that keep harping on the virtues of the regional conference keep saying i's the best model----but contract earnings over the last two decades do not back it up. In 1996, CUSA teams made about 50% of what the typical P5 school earned in media. Today, CUSA teams make about 5% of what the typical P5 school earns. The G5 conferences can hang on to the past regional conference model, but its a proven loser for the G5 in the current college sports landscape. The regional model has done nothing over the past 2 decades but increase the gap between the haves and have-nots.

My feeling is---its time to try something different. Even if the national model fails, so what? We are losing ground every year under the regional model. We KNOW its not going to work. If the national model works to close the gap a bit---GREAT. If not, the national conference can separate by division and easily reconstitute itself as 3 separate regional conferences (the 3 divisions would just add a few teams to fill out their ranks). As long as 6 teams have played Olympic sports together for 6 years then they qualify for immediate NCAA auto-bids. In a worst case scenario---the members of any national conference will be no worse off than they are now. If the national conference works well, they may be MUCH better off than they are now. There is just nothing to lose at this point.

You didn't read Wedge's post, then. An 18 team model won't get you anything, because you'll have to divide the money too many ways.

The gap is a fact of life and you're not going to close it much more than it is now. The G5 have gained access and money with every iteration of the post-season system. That's something.


And if your plan doesn't work, it's not just so what. It will have screwed up perfectly good conferences for nothing.

(08-01-2015 06:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 02:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 03:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 03:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 02:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Having too many schools to divide up the TV money means that the per-school income will never get that high.

Think about it: For an 18-school G5 conference to make 50% as much per school in TV money as the 10-school Big 12, the G5 conference would have to be getting 90% of the total TV dollars per year that the Big 12 gets. You know that's not going to happen.

If making TV money is really the only reason to form a new G5 conference, then ask well-connected TV consultants what the most valuable 10-team combination is, 12 teams at the absolute max, and go with that.

Yeah but that's lame to shred up all the G5 conferences just to get a 10 team "best of G5" that still won't be at the top level.

Adding 6 MW teams to the AAC is the only option to do anything like that right now. That would work out fine for Idaho and NM State. The MW would move on with 8 (more if they want to take some Big Sky schools or grab Texas St and UTSA).

Adding 6 to the 12 (football) AAC does not fit the 10-12 context that we were discussing.

Creating a "best of G5" with 10-12 members would result in shredding up the current G5 conferences. And for what? No significant gain.

G5 conferences have been shredded in the past for much less gain than I am proposing. In just the last round of realignment, the old Big East was essentially destroyed (and reborn as a G5), CUSA lost 66% of its membership, the Sunbelt lost almost half its members, and the WAC was completely destroyed as an FBS league. No G5 would be destroyed by my proposal. The MW would lose 6, but would easily survive by adding NMS and Idaho. Truth be told, it actually would save a pair of FBS programs that are in serious trouble right now.

The WAC dying is exactly the perfect example of why a national G5 shouldn't be allowed. Unnecessary destruction for no gain.

MWC wouldn't automatically add Idaho and NM St, either.

(08-02-2015 11:41 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 06:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 02:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 03:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 03:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah but that's lame to shred up all the G5 conferences just to get a 10 team "best of G5" that still won't be at the top level.

Adding 6 MW teams to the AAC is the only option to do anything like that right now. That would work out fine for Idaho and NM State. The MW would move on with 8 (more if they want to take some Big Sky schools or grab Texas St and UTSA).

Adding 6 to the 12 (football) AAC does not fit the 10-12 context that we were discussing.

Creating a "best of G5" with 10-12 members would result in shredding up the current G5 conferences. And for what? No significant gain.

G5 conferences have been shredded in the past for much less gain than I am proposing. In just the last round of realignment, the old Big East was essentially destroyed (and reborn as a G5), CUSA lost 66% of its membership, the Sunbelt lost almost half its members, and the WAC was completely destroyed as an FBS league. No G5 would be destroyed by my proposal. The MW would lose 6, but would easily survive by adding NMS and Idaho. Truth be told, it actually would save a pair of FBS programs that are in serious trouble right now.

The WAC dying is exactly the perfect example of why a national G5 shouldn't be allowed. Unnecessary destruction for no gain.

MWC wouldn't automatically add Idaho and NM St, either.

Sure they would. Otherwise, they would cease to exist. Besides---Isnt that your definition of a "perfectly good" conference? A regional conference with regional schools and rivalries? Maybe they even add some of the top Montana and Dakota schools.

(08-02-2015 11:40 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 06:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 02:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 03:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 03:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah but that's lame to shred up all the G5 conferences just to get a 10 team "best of G5" that still won't be at the top level.

Adding 6 MW teams to the AAC is the only option to do anything like that right now. That would work out fine for Idaho and NM State. The MW would move on with 8 (more if they want to take some Big Sky schools or grab Texas St and UTSA).

Adding 6 to the 12 (football) AAC does not fit the 10-12 context that we were discussing.

Creating a "best of G5" with 10-12 members would result in shredding up the current G5 conferences. And for what? No significant gain.

I never said anything about a 10-12 team concept. In fact, I don't think a national 10-12 team concept is viable because it would create tremendous travel issues. My plan is a minimum of 18 teams (3 6-team divisions---eastern, central, and western). The concept would be a 8 game conference football schedule (5 in division, 3 cross-divisional). Top 2 division winner play in the CCG.

For basketball, you have a home-and-home within the division (10 games), plus 3 cross divisional games with each of the other 2 divisions (6 games--of which just 3 would be on the road). That's a 16 game conference schedule with reasonable travel. Non-revenue sports would play primarily within the division.

Such a structure gives a conference the same regional aspects you claim are so important while expanding the footprint to create a rooting interest in most any region of the country and combining more G5 fan bases (18 rather just 12) to attract a larger pool of interested viewers (which would be closer to a P5 viewer pool rather than a G5 viewer pool).

Here's the thing---the folks that keep harping on the virtues of the regional conference keep saying i's the best model----but contract earnings over the last two decades do not back it up. In 1996, CUSA teams made about 50% of what the typical P5 school earned in media. Today, CUSA teams make about 5% of what the typical P5 school earns. The G5 conferences can hang on to the past regional conference model, but its a proven loser for the G5 in the current college sports landscape. The regional model has done nothing over the past 2 decades but increase the gap between the haves and have-nots.

My feeling is---its time to try something different. Even if the national model fails, so what? We are losing ground every year under the regional model. We KNOW its not going to work. If the national model works to close the gap a bit---GREAT. If not, the national conference can separate by division and easily reconstitute itself as 3 separate regional conferences (the 3 divisions would just add a few teams to fill out their ranks). As long as 6 teams have played Olympic sports together for 6 years then they qualify for immediate NCAA auto-bids. In a worst case scenario---the members of any national conference will be no worse off than they are now. If the national conference works well, they may be MUCH better off than they are now. There is just nothing to lose at this point.

You didn't read Wedge's post, then. An 18 team model won't get you anything, because you'll have to divide the money too many ways.

The gap is a fact of life and you're not going to close it much more than it is now. The G5 have gained access and money with every iteration of the post-season system. That's something.


And if your plan doesn't work, it's not just so what. It will have screwed up perfectly good conferences for nothing.

I addressed Wedges post (see post #61). As for screwing up a "perfectly good" conference---I wouldn't be "screwing up" anything. If it was so great, schools wouldn't leave it to try something else. The reality is these "perfectly good" conferences are very likely to find themselves playing in another division at the end the current CFP contract. Anyone with vision can see that change is coming. For instance, I wouldn't expect there to be anymore FCS vs P5 games once this CFP cycle ends (that may happen well before the end of this contract).

Unless the G5 wants to be stuck playing only themselves and maybe some current FCS schools in a new college football pee-wee division---they had better figure out a way to keep up. If they try something new and it fails---well, I can live with that. Yes, we would get stuck playing a lower level---but at least we will know we tried everything and still couldn't keep up. It is what it is. What I cant support is the current strategy of hiding their heads in the sand and hoping for things to get better.

(08-02-2015 03:07 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 11:41 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 06:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 02:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 03:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Adding 6 MW teams to the AAC is the only option to do anything like that right now. That would work out fine for Idaho and NM State. The MW would move on with 8 (more if they want to take some Big Sky schools or grab Texas St and UTSA).

Adding 6 to the 12 (football) AAC does not fit the 10-12 context that we were discussing.

Creating a "best of G5" with 10-12 members would result in shredding up the current G5 conferences. And for what? No significant gain.

G5 conferences have been shredded in the past for much less gain than I am proposing. In just the last round of realignment, the old Big East was essentially destroyed (and reborn as a G5), CUSA lost 66% of its membership, the Sunbelt lost almost half its members, and the WAC was completely destroyed as an FBS league. No G5 would be destroyed by my proposal. The MW would lose 6, but would easily survive by adding NMS and Idaho. Truth be told, it actually would save a pair of FBS programs that are in serious trouble right now.

The WAC dying is exactly the perfect example of why a national G5 shouldn't be allowed. Unnecessary destruction for no gain.

MWC wouldn't automatically add Idaho and NM St, either.

Sure they would. Otherwise, they would cease to exist. Besides---Isnt that your definition of a "perfectly good" conference? A regional conference with regional schools and rivalries? Maybe they even add some of the top Montana and Dakota schools.

My point is that they would probably look elsewhere, taking Idaho and New Mexico St only as a last resort.

(08-02-2015 03:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-02-2015 11:40 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 06:06 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 02:25 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 03:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Adding 6 MW teams to the AAC is the only option to do anything like that right now. That would work out fine for Idaho and NM State. The MW would move on with 8 (more if they want to take some Big Sky schools or grab Texas St and UTSA).

Adding 6 to the 12 (football) AAC does not fit the 10-12 context that we were discussing.

Creating a "best of G5" with 10-12 members would result in shredding up the current G5 conferences. And for what? No significant gain.

I never said anything about a 10-12 team concept. In fact, I don't think a national 10-12 team concept is viable because it would create tremendous travel issues. My plan is a minimum of 18 teams (3 6-team divisions---eastern, central, and western). The concept would be a 8 game conference football schedule (5 in division, 3 cross-divisional). Top 2 division winner play in the CCG.

For basketball, you have a home-and-home within the division (10 games), plus 3 cross divisional games with each of the other 2 divisions (6 games--of which just 3 would be on the road). That's a 16 game conference schedule with reasonable travel. Non-revenue sports would play primarily within the division.

Such a structure gives a conference the same regional aspects you claim are so important while expanding the footprint to create a rooting interest in most any region of the country and combining more G5 fan bases (18 rather just 12) to attract a larger pool of interested viewers (which would be closer to a P5 viewer pool rather than a G5 viewer pool).

Here's the thing---the folks that keep harping on the virtues of the regional conference keep saying i's the best model----but contract earnings over the last two decades do not back it up. In 1996, CUSA teams made about 50% of what the typical P5 school earned in media. Today, CUSA teams make about 5% of what the typical P5 school earns. The G5 conferences can hang on to the past regional conference model, but its a proven loser for the G5 in the current college sports landscape. The regional model has done nothing over the past 2 decades but increase the gap between the haves and have-nots.

My feeling is---its time to try something different. Even if the national model fails, so what? We are losing ground every year under the regional model. We KNOW its not going to work. If the national model works to close the gap a bit---GREAT. If not, the national conference can separate by division and easily reconstitute itself as 3 separate regional conferences (the 3 divisions would just add a few teams to fill out their ranks). As long as 6 teams have played Olympic sports together for 6 years then they qualify for immediate NCAA auto-bids. In a worst case scenario---the members of any national conference will be no worse off than they are now. If the national conference works well, they may be MUCH better off than they are now. There is just nothing to lose at this point.

You didn't read Wedge's post, then. An 18 team model won't get you anything, because you'll have to divide the money too many ways.

The gap is a fact of life and you're not going to close it much more than it is now. The G5 have gained access and money with every iteration of the post-season system. That's something.


And if your plan doesn't work, it's not just so what. It will have screwed up perfectly good conferences for nothing.

I addressed Wedges post (see post #61). As for screwing up a "perfectly good" conference---I wouldn't be "screwing up" anything. If it was so great, schools wouldn't leave it to try something else. The reality is these "perfectly good" conferences are very likely to find themselves playing in another division at the end the current CFP contract. Anyone with vision can see that change is coming. For instance, I wouldn't expect there to be anymore FCS vs P5 games once this CFP cycle ends (that may happen well before the end of this contract).

Unless the G5 wants to be stuck playing only themselves and maybe some current FCS schools in a new college football pee-wee division---they had better figure out a way to keep up. If they try something new and it fails---well, I can live with that. Yes, we would get stuck playing a lower level---but at least we will know we tried everything and still couldn't keep up. It is what it is. What I cant support is the current strategy of hiding their heads in the sand and hoping for things to get better.

You didn't address his point. You confirmed it, actually.

There's no way an 18 team G5 would ever earn close to what you're dreaming of. Even if they were in all four timezones.


The autonomy group is not separating from FBS. Come on now ... that level of delusional fantasy is reserved only for FCS fans who want to pull the G5 down to FCS.

It certainly isn't happening any time during the CFP (the next 11 years). And it won't happen after that either.

If that's really your main concern, then rest easy my friend. Houston will be in the top sub-division of DI college football for decades to come.