The unofficial online home for fans of the Old Dominion University Monarchs. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(03-13-2017 09:56 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 09:36 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 09:29 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 09:26 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-12-2017 08:07 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  That is case with most mid majors.....look at CAA compared to CUSA:

based on kenpom

MTSU 48; UNCW 60
LT 91; Charlesfon 86
ODU 122; Towson 116
Marshall 150; W&M 132
Rice 154; Northeasrern 157
UAB 196; Hoftra 183
UTEP 202; JMU 220
WKY 233; Drexel 247
Charlotte 235
UTSA 252

CUSA gets touted as '24th' best conference while Colonial is 13. Judge for yourself if it makes sense or why it would be that way

And, I think you just got to the root of the problem. You conveniently left out:

FAU 280
Southern Miss 331
FIU 338
North Texas 339

In 2 years we will have enough schools that have been together long enough to start a new 8-10 team conference and shed the dead weight.

ODU
WKU
MTSU
UAB
Marshall
Southern Miss
Charlotte
La Tech
Add someone else to balance the schedule (JMU, ULL, N. Dakota St)

Everyone plays everyone in football and twice in basketball.

That would be as good of a conference as we could possibly hope for, without an AAC invite, in both sports.

No, I didn't conveniently leave out....It was my entire point.

You seemed to question why the CAA is ranked much higher. The answer is because their worst school is in the top 250. We have 5 outside of the top 250 3 in the 330s out of 351 total D1 teams. That is why. Not only is the conference way to large, it has 5 teams that are worse than anyone in the CAA and 3 teams among the botton 20 in the country.

My point was that CUSA has as good or better of a top 8 than CAA. Actually, the top 10 is just as good or better than the top 8 from CAA. Its only dumb to think the CAA is some vastly superior conference and those guys would run through CUSA.

You can't just look at your numbers and make those statements. As was proven by some of the absurdly low rankings of ACC teams this year, losing more games because you play in a better conference does negatively affect your rankings.

I mean your beloved Kenpom has St Mary's ranked two spots below Duke... they are not remotely close. It has UVA ranked 5 spots ahead of Duke, not reasonable. St Mary's is ranked ahead of Oregon, UCLA, and Arizona... by quite a bit. If you watched the games, and look at the rankings, and use them in conjunction, it is clear the CAA is a better conference, and it is not just because of the bottom 5 CUSA teams, who do by the way benefit the rest of the conference with a bunch of easy wins, and more importantly easy road wins. The problem the ACC teams ran into is that it was damn near impossible to win on the road in that conference because of the top to bottom quality. On a smaller scale, CUSA teams have a similar advantage over CAA teams.

(03-13-2017 10:47 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 09:56 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 09:36 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 09:29 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 09:26 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  And, I think you just got to the root of the problem. You conveniently left out:

FAU 280
Southern Miss 331
FIU 338
North Texas 339

In 2 years we will have enough schools that have been together long enough to start a new 8-10 team conference and shed the dead weight.

ODU
WKU
MTSU
UAB
Marshall
Southern Miss
Charlotte
La Tech
Add someone else to balance the schedule (JMU, ULL, N. Dakota St)

Everyone plays everyone in football and twice in basketball.

That would be as good of a conference as we could possibly hope for, without an AAC invite, in both sports.

No, I didn't conveniently leave out....It was my entire point.

You seemed to question why the CAA is ranked much higher. The answer is because their worst school is in the top 250. We have 5 outside of the top 250 3 in the 330s out of 351 total D1 teams. That is why. Not only is the conference way to large, it has 5 teams that are worse than anyone in the CAA and 3 teams among the botton 20 in the country.

My point was that CUSA has as good or better of a top 8 than CAA. Actually, the top 10 is just as good or better than the top 8 from CAA. Its only dumb to think the CAA is some vastly superior conference and those guys would run through CUSA.

You can't just look at your numbers and make those statements. As was proven by some of the absurdly low rankings of ACC teams this year, losing more games because you play in a better conference does negatively affect your rankings.

I mean your beloved Kenpom has St Mary's ranked two spots below Duke... they are not remotely close. It has UVA ranked 5 spots ahead of Duke, not reasonable. St Mary's is ranked ahead of Oregon, UCLA, and Arizona... by quite a bit. If you watched the games, and look at the rankings, and use them in conjunction, it is clear the CAA is a better conference, and it is not just because of the bottom 5 CUSA teams, who do by the way benefit the rest of the conference with a bunch of easy wins, and more importantly easy road wins. The problem the ACC teams ran into is that it was damn near impossible to win on the road in that conference because of the top to bottom quality. On a smaller scale, CUSA teams have a similar advantage over CAA teams.

Your post is loaded with conjecture; per usual. Hey, they aren't as good because "I say so."

(03-13-2017 10:17 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 09:26 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-12-2017 08:07 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(03-12-2017 06:42 PM)backcourt Wrote:  So MTSU is a 12 seed. They wouldn't have gotten in had they not won the CUSA Tournament. Again, just proves you almost have to be perfect to get in the NCAA Tournament as an at-large from CUSA. Perfect (and lucky - no injuries) from November to March.

That is case with most mid majors.....look at CAA compared to CUSA:

based on kenpom

MTSU 48; UNCW 60
LT 91; Charlesfon 86
ODU 122; Towson 116
Marshall 150; W&M 132
Rice 154; Northeasrern 157
UAB 196; Hoftra 183
UTEP 202; JMU 220
WKY 233; Drexel 247
Charlotte 235
UTSA 252

CUSA gets touted as '24th' best conference while Colonial is 13. Judge for yourself if it makes sense or why it would be that way

And, I think you just got to the root of the problem. You conveniently left out:

FAU 280
Southern Miss 331
FIU 338
North Texas 339

In 2 years we will have enough schools that have been together long enough to start a new 8-10 team conference and shed the dead weight.

ODU
WKU
MTSU
UAB
Marshall
Southern Miss
Charlotte
La Tech
Add someone else to balance the schedule (JMU, ULL, N. Dakota St)

Everyone plays everyone in football and twice in basketball.

That would be as good of a conference as we could possibly hope for, without an AAC invite, in both sports.

+1. It would still suck geographically, and not be as good as the AAC, but it would be a LOT better than we are in now, and should consistently be in the 10-15 rated conference range and better than the CAA.

In the reality of FBS, and the fact that Navy, Temple, and ECU aren't dropping down to join with us, there is no way to make it not suck geographically.

(03-13-2017 10:58 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 10:47 AM)Monarchblue Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 09:56 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 09:36 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 09:29 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  No, I didn't conveniently leave out....It was my entire point.

You seemed to question why the CAA is ranked much higher. The answer is because their worst school is in the top 250. We have 5 outside of the top 250 3 in the 330s out of 351 total D1 teams. That is why. Not only is the conference way to large, it has 5 teams that are worse than anyone in the CAA and 3 teams among the botton 20 in the country.

My point was that CUSA has as good or better of a top 8 than CAA. Actually, the top 10 is just as good or better than the top 8 from CAA. Its only dumb to think the CAA is some vastly superior conference and those guys would run through CUSA.

You can't just look at your numbers and make those statements. As was proven by some of the absurdly low rankings of ACC teams this year, losing more games because you play in a better conference does negatively affect your rankings.

I mean your beloved Kenpom has St Mary's ranked two spots below Duke... they are not remotely close. It has UVA ranked 5 spots ahead of Duke, not reasonable. St Mary's is ranked ahead of Oregon, UCLA, and Arizona... by quite a bit. If you watched the games, and look at the rankings, and use them in conjunction, it is clear the CAA is a better conference, and it is not just because of the bottom 5 CUSA teams, who do by the way benefit the rest of the conference with a bunch of easy wins, and more importantly easy road wins. The problem the ACC teams ran into is that it was damn near impossible to win on the road in that conference because of the top to bottom quality. On a smaller scale, CUSA teams have a similar advantage over CAA teams.

Your post is loaded with conjecture; per usual. Hey, they aren't as good because "I say so."

And your stance is that random numbers that some guy created are more meaningful than all of the experts that actually watch games.

Just because you use numbers, does not mean they are not conjecture. Somebody had to create the formula. Somebody decided what to value, and what not to value. It is ALL conjecture.

... and do you disagree that Duke is significantly better than St Mary's? Have you seen St Mary's play? Do you think that St. Mary's is significantly better than Oregon, Arizona, and UCLA. Do you think that UNC is significantly better than Duke, even though Duke beat them 2 out of 3 and finished with one more loss than them against a SIGNIFICANTLY more difficult conference schedule?

Easy to say "just full of conjecture blah blah", but you failed to even attempt to refute anything that I said.

Lol off "some guy." Do you understand what led to the person using the formula? Data is not conjecture. You should research what confirmation bias is. Furthermore, 3 games is not a significant sample.

Yes, I have seen St. Marys several times. They played the 11:00 ESPN game on Saturday nights, FWIW.

Im not going on and on about this though, it benefits no one. I will use data to support my opinions. You can use Charles Barkley and other "experts" eyes.

(03-13-2017 11:05 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 10:17 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 09:26 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-12-2017 08:07 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(03-12-2017 06:42 PM)backcourt Wrote:  So MTSU is a 12 seed. They wouldn't have gotten in had they not won the CUSA Tournament. Again, just proves you almost have to be perfect to get in the NCAA Tournament as an at-large from CUSA. Perfect (and lucky - no injuries) from November to March.

That is case with most mid majors.....look at CAA compared to CUSA:

based on kenpom

MTSU 48; UNCW 60
LT 91; Charlesfon 86
ODU 122; Towson 116
Marshall 150; W&M 132
Rice 154; Northeasrern 157
UAB 196; Hoftra 183
UTEP 202; JMU 220
WKY 233; Drexel 247
Charlotte 235
UTSA 252

CUSA gets touted as '24th' best conference while Colonial is 13. Judge for yourself if it makes sense or why it would be that way

And, I think you just got to the root of the problem. You conveniently left out:

FAU 280
Southern Miss 331
FIU 338
North Texas 339

In 2 years we will have enough schools that have been together long enough to start a new 8-10 team conference and shed the dead weight.

ODU
WKU
MTSU
UAB
Marshall
Southern Miss
Charlotte
La Tech
Add someone else to balance the schedule (JMU, ULL, N. Dakota St)

Everyone plays everyone in football and twice in basketball.

That would be as good of a conference as we could possibly hope for, without an AAC invite, in both sports.

+1. It would still suck geographically, and not be as good as the AAC, but it would be a LOT better than we are in now, and should consistently be in the 10-15 rated conference range and better than the CAA.

In the reality of FBS, and the fact that Navy, Temple, and ECU aren't dropping down to join with us, there is no way to make it not suck geographically.

I agree. We need to be in a conference with Navy, Temple and ECU (Marshall too) without question. But until that happens, the proposal above is still worlds better than where we are.

(03-13-2017 11:52 AM)Gilesfan Wrote:  Lol off "some guy." Do you understand what led to the person using the formula? Data is not conjecture. You should research what confirmation bias is. Furthermore, 3 games is not a significant sample.

Yes, I have seen St. Marys several times. They played the 11:00 ESPN game on Saturday nights, FWIW.

Im not going on and on about this though, it benefits no one. I will use data to support my opinions. You can use Charles Barkley and other "experts" eyes.

And you still haven't refuted the idiocy of the rankings that I shared. Also, you fail to admit that bias exists in the the people who create formulae. I work with a lot of developers, trust me they have strong opinions, and they shape the programs that they write.

While on the whole the formula may be able to give a big picture glimpse at what is happening, when you try to drill down and use it on the granular levels that you do, and you treat it as though it is infalable, you are not being open minded to all of the nuance that actually needs to go into informing such opinions, and you are completely thrown off track by the inconsitencies that you fail to acknowledge.

No computer can capture the human component. There are too many variables. If it could, why even play the games? Perhaps in a game in a glorified high school gym in front of 300 people, St. Mary's could hang with and maybe even beat Duke more often than not. But in front of 20,000 people with the nerves flaring, coaching adjustments, and team psychology, you have to factor in that Coach K is likely to have his team pretty close to 100% mentally. Then again, he has also lost in the first round. Each player responds to those adjustments, motivational speaking, and psychology tricks differently. Coach K has a helluva record in getting it right, but is record does not suggest infallibility. Not to mention, other potential variables... maybe a cold or allergies bothering someone, even just a little, and they are playing at 90% strength. Those 3-pointers that fall at a 40% clip... maybe a couple that should go in bounce off the front iron. Maybe one of the rims has a little more spring in it than the other. Maybe the Grayson Allen found out the night before that his girlfrien is pregnant, and suddenly the game has a little less focus to it. Again, the human element.

There is no need to refute anything. If I wanted to; how would I do so? Hey, my eyes said UNC was better! Or "they played that 1 game, so they must be better!"

I should have accounted for Ken Pom being bias toward St. Marys...I guess.. lol.

The system attempts to predict what would happen if each team were to play. Obviously, nothing is perfect. Its is far more worthwhile than a handful of games between a certain team and using that as "support." It also happens to correlate well with the spreads Vegas puts out and the performance throughout the NCAA tournaments in years past. There are other decent measures as well.

If you seem to think "experts" on the air have less bias, that is certainly fine for you to believe. I would argue that statistical models have less bias than former coaches that tend to be advocates for their friends. Additionally, the "experts" pegged Dayton as a 7 seed and Wichita State as a 10 seed and Vegas has Wichita State as a 6 point favorite. How much confidence should someone have in "experts?"

(03-13-2017 09:26 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-12-2017 08:07 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(03-12-2017 06:42 PM)backcourt Wrote:  So MTSU is a 12 seed. They wouldn't have gotten in had they not won the CUSA Tournament. Again, just proves you almost have to be perfect to get in the NCAA Tournament as an at-large from CUSA. Perfect (and lucky - no injuries) from November to March.

That is case with most mid majors.....look at CAA compared to CUSA:

based on kenpom

MTSU 48; UNCW 60
LT 91; Charlesfon 86
ODU 122; Towson 116
Marshall 150; W&M 132
Rice 154; Northeasrern 157
UAB 196; Hoftra 183
UTEP 202; JMU 220
WKY 233; Drexel 247
Charlotte 235
UTSA 252

CUSA gets touted as '24th' best conference while Colonial is 13. Judge for yourself if it makes sense or why it would be that way

And, I think you just got to the root of the problem. You conveniently left out:

FAU 280
Southern Miss 331
FIU 338
North Texas 339

In 2 years we will have enough schools that have been together long enough to start a new 8-10 team conference and shed the dead weight.

ODU
WKU
MTSU
UAB
Marshall
Southern Miss
Charlotte
La Tech
Add someone else to balance the schedule (JMU, ULL, N. Dakota St)

Everyone plays everyone in football and twice in basketball.

That would be as good of a conference as we could possibly hope for, without an AAC invite, in both sports.

I'm not sure the "continuity" rules for a conference still apply. Here's a whole conversation about it but I don't know if anything was decided definitely. The rules were changed for the WAC in 2011 or so. What they say now? I don't know. Also, the CFP contracts would only apply to the conferences in existence at the time so if we form a new conference we'd be out of any money coming from it.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-768543.html

(03-13-2017 01:01 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 09:26 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(03-12-2017 08:07 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(03-12-2017 06:42 PM)backcourt Wrote:  So MTSU is a 12 seed. They wouldn't have gotten in had they not won the CUSA Tournament. Again, just proves you almost have to be perfect to get in the NCAA Tournament as an at-large from CUSA. Perfect (and lucky - no injuries) from November to March.

That is case with most mid majors.....look at CAA compared to CUSA:

based on kenpom

MTSU 48; UNCW 60
LT 91; Charlesfon 86
ODU 122; Towson 116
Marshall 150; W&M 132
Rice 154; Northeasrern 157
UAB 196; Hoftra 183
UTEP 202; JMU 220
WKY 233; Drexel 247
Charlotte 235
UTSA 252

CUSA gets touted as '24th' best conference while Colonial is 13. Judge for yourself if it makes sense or why it would be that way

And, I think you just got to the root of the problem. You conveniently left out:

FAU 280
Southern Miss 331
FIU 338
North Texas 339

In 2 years we will have enough schools that have been together long enough to start a new 8-10 team conference and shed the dead weight.

ODU
WKU
MTSU
UAB
Marshall
Southern Miss
Charlotte
La Tech
Add someone else to balance the schedule (JMU, ULL, N. Dakota St)

Everyone plays everyone in football and twice in basketball.

That would be as good of a conference as we could possibly hope for, without an AAC invite, in both sports.

I'm not sure the "continuity" rules for a conference still apply. Here's a whole conversation about it but I don't know if anything was decided definitely. The rules were changed for the WAC in 2011 or so. What they say now? I don't know. Also, the CFP contracts would only apply to the conferences in existence at the time so if we form a new conference we'd be out of any money coming from it.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-768543.html

Move the eight teams into the WAC, kick out everyone else, move the offices to somewhere in God's Time Zone (Eastern) and rename it Conference By The Sea?

(03-13-2017 12:22 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  No computer can capture the human component. There are too many variables. If it could, why even play the games? Perhaps in a game in a glorified high school gym in front of 300 people, St. Mary's could hang with and maybe even beat Duke more often than not. But in front of 20,000 people with the nerves flaring, coaching adjustments, and team psychology, you have to factor in that Coach K is likely to have his team pretty close to 100% mentally. Then again, he has also lost in the first round. Each player responds to those adjustments, motivational speaking, and psychology tricks differently. Coach K has a helluva record in getting it right, but is record does not suggest infallibility. Not to mention, other potential variables... maybe a cold or allergies bothering someone, even just a little, and they are playing at 90% strength. Those 3-pointers that fall at a 40% clip... maybe a couple that should go in bounce off the front iron. Maybe one of the rims has a little more spring in it than the other. Maybe the Grayson Allen found out the night before that his girlfrien is pregnant, and suddenly the game has a little less focus to it. Again, the human element.

Strange post, but I don't think anyone will dispute that random occurrences could have an impact on games. We are talking about probabilities, not certainties.

Speaking of Duke, i thought they were the most talented team early in the season, but then Giles wasn't quit as good as I expected and Allen regressed from last year. I am def fading them; teams that don't have a point guard tend to not win it all.

My head is going to explode.

(03-13-2017 01:13 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 12:22 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  No computer can capture the human component. There are too many variables. If it could, why even play the games? Perhaps in a game in a glorified high school gym in front of 300 people, St. Mary's could hang with and maybe even beat Duke more often than not. But in front of 20,000 people with the nerves flaring, coaching adjustments, and team psychology, you have to factor in that Coach K is likely to have his team pretty close to 100% mentally. Then again, he has also lost in the first round. Each player responds to those adjustments, motivational speaking, and psychology tricks differently. Coach K has a helluva record in getting it right, but is record does not suggest infallibility. Not to mention, other potential variables... maybe a cold or allergies bothering someone, even just a little, and they are playing at 90% strength. Those 3-pointers that fall at a 40% clip... maybe a couple that should go in bounce off the front iron. Maybe one of the rims has a little more spring in it than the other. Maybe the Grayson Allen found out the night before that his girlfrien is pregnant, and suddenly the game has a little less focus to it. Again, the human element.

Strange post, but I don't think anyone will dispute that random occurrences could have an impact on games. We are talking about probabilities, not certainties.

Speaking of Duke, i thought they were the most talented team early in the season, but then Giles wasn't quit as good as I expected and Allen regressed from last year. I am def fading them; teams that don't have a point guard tend to not win it all.

My point was that there are so many variables and human elements that there is no way to derive an accurate probability. Maybe with a very large sample size, like 500 games, you can perhaps use standard deviation to predict how likely and how far someone might stray from "normal" one way or the other, with a certain percentage of confidence, and that may factor in a lot of the human element as well as factor in data matching up against a larger array of styles and systems, but 30 games just isn't nearly enough. Take "havoc" for instance. Blaine's teams and other CAA teams were experienced enough to know that it takes a certain degree of discipline to beat it, but there were a lot of statistically "better" teams that fell to it because the statistics did not factor in the matchup of styles and the inexperience that major conference teams had going up against "havoc". The statistics only really said that over course of the 30 game schedules that were played by each team, Purdue, Florida State, and Kansas were better than VCU. The statistics cannot predict how the teams will matchup against each other.

Welcome to the offseason. Going to be here a while.

(03-13-2017 01:01 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I'm not sure the "continuity" rules for a conference still apply. Here's a whole conversation about it but I don't know if anything was decided definitely. The rules were changed for the WAC in 2011 or so. What they say now? I don't know. Also, the CFP contracts would only apply to the conferences in existence at the time so if we form a new conference we'd be out of any money coming from it.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-768543.html

And the CFP money will be what keeps us in CUSA until The American life boat comes.

(03-13-2017 01:50 PM)ODU2K1 Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 01:01 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I'm not sure the "continuity" rules for a conference still apply. Here's a whole conversation about it but I don't know if anything was decided definitely. The rules were changed for the WAC in 2011 or so. What they say now? I don't know. Also, the CFP contracts would only apply to the conferences in existence at the time so if we form a new conference we'd be out of any money coming from it.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-768543.html

And the CFP money will be what keeps us in CUSA until The American life boat comes.

No reason why the NCAA couldn't approve another conference in the CFP money. They make up, change up and ignore rules all the time. Look at half the MAC schools attendance figures, Look at Liberty, Look at UNC's cheating scandals, Baylor and SMU. If we can convince the NCAA to let us start a new conference the extra money to them will be minuscule as a G5(6?) conference. The other thing we could do is simply split it, taking our portion, and leaving the other half with the others. The bigger fight might be internally with who gets the bowl bids and the basketball autobid. Though that conference may actually get at-larges. Somehow both the American and Big East have auto bids, so there must be a way.

(03-13-2017 01:13 PM)Gilesfan Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 12:22 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  No computer can capture the human component. There are too many variables. If it could, why even play the games? Perhaps in a game in a glorified high school gym in front of 300 people, St. Mary's could hang with and maybe even beat Duke more often than not. But in front of 20,000 people with the nerves flaring, coaching adjustments, and team psychology, you have to factor in that Coach K is likely to have his team pretty close to 100% mentally. Then again, he has also lost in the first round. Each player responds to those adjustments, motivational speaking, and psychology tricks differently. Coach K has a helluva record in getting it right, but is record does not suggest infallibility. Not to mention, other potential variables... maybe a cold or allergies bothering someone, even just a little, and they are playing at 90% strength. Those 3-pointers that fall at a 40% clip... maybe a couple that should go in bounce off the front iron. Maybe one of the rims has a little more spring in it than the other. Maybe the Grayson Allen found out the night before that his girlfrien is pregnant, and suddenly the game has a little less focus to it. Again, the human element.

Strange post, but I don't think anyone will dispute that random occurrences could have an impact on games. We are talking about probabilities, not certainties.

Speaking of Duke, i thought they were the most talented team early in the season, but then Giles wasn't quit as good as I expected and Allen regressed from last year. I am def fading them; teams that don't have a point guard tend to not win it all.

Frank Jackson.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

(03-13-2017 02:27 PM)monarx Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 01:50 PM)ODU2K1 Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 01:01 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I'm not sure the "continuity" rules for a conference still apply. Here's a whole conversation about it but I don't know if anything was decided definitely. The rules were changed for the WAC in 2011 or so. What they say now? I don't know. Also, the CFP contracts would only apply to the conferences in existence at the time so if we form a new conference we'd be out of any money coming from it.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-768543.html

And the CFP money will be what keeps us in CUSA until The American life boat comes.

No reason why the NCAA couldn't approve another conference in the CFP money. They make up, change up and ignore rules all the time. Look at half the MAC schools attendance figures, Look at Liberty, Look at UNC's cheating scandals, Baylor and SMU. If we can convince the NCAA to let us start a new conference the extra money to them will be minuscule as a G5(6?) conference. The other thing we could do is simply split it, taking our portion, and leaving the other half with the others. The bigger fight might be internally with who gets the bowl bids and the basketball autobid. Though that conference may actually get at-larges. Somehow both the American and Big East have auto bids, so there must be a way.

The CFP is separate from the NCAA. It is run by the ten 1-A conferences (OK really the P5). In theory, they could say sure we will add another conference and have a G6 but the likelihood of that happening is slim. I could see the P5 holding out for more votes or some kind of veto power. The financial impact is somewhat minimal to the G5/G6 conferences. A drop of $2.78 million per conference based off the 20016-17 payouts.

The basketball tournament bid should take care of itself in two more years once you have enough teams playing together long enough. Of course, the P5 schools and ESPN talking heads will scream about watering down the tournament with fewer bids for the blue bloods.

(03-13-2017 03:33 PM)ODU2K1 Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 02:27 PM)monarx Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 01:50 PM)ODU2K1 Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 01:01 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I'm not sure the "continuity" rules for a conference still apply. Here's a whole conversation about it but I don't know if anything was decided definitely. The rules were changed for the WAC in 2011 or so. What they say now? I don't know. Also, the CFP contracts would only apply to the conferences in existence at the time so if we form a new conference we'd be out of any money coming from it.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-768543.html

And the CFP money will be what keeps us in CUSA until The American life boat comes.

No reason why the NCAA couldn't approve another conference in the CFP money. They make up, change up and ignore rules all the time. Look at half the MAC schools attendance figures, Look at Liberty, Look at UNC's cheating scandals, Baylor and SMU. If we can convince the NCAA to let us start a new conference the extra money to them will be minuscule as a G5(6?) conference. The other thing we could do is simply split it, taking our portion, and leaving the other half with the others. The bigger fight might be internally with who gets the bowl bids and the basketball autobid. Though that conference may actually get at-larges. Somehow both the American and Big East have auto bids, so there must be a way.

The CFP is separate from the NCAA. It is run by the ten 1-A conferences (OK really the P5). In theory, they could say sure we will add another conference and have a G6 but the likelihood of that happening is slim. I could see the P5 holding out for more votes or some kind of veto power. The financial impact is somewhat minimal to the G5/G6 conferences. A drop of $2.78 million per conference based off the 20016-17 payouts.

The basketball tournament bid should take care of itself in two more years once you have enough teams playing together long enough. Of course, the P5 schools and ESPN talking heads will scream about watering down the tournament with fewer bids for the blue bloods.

Ive got to believe people would rather see a scrappy 2nd place team from the A10, MVC, CUSA, CAA etc than a Vanderbilt or something. I don't know how fans of those teams even take it seriously. Its like a participation trophy for simply being blessed to be in a P5 conference. I'll be the first to admit ODU didn't deserve to be in this year with a third place finish and 19 wins, I don't see why P5 fans don't feel the same way. I wish the NCAA would institute a rule that says you must finish above .500 in your conference to go to the dance. Plain and simple. That doesn't seem like too much to ask. Stuff like that is whats watering down the tourney.