.

For both sides to have their arguments considered fairly and compared, there needs to be a thread that presents the case for a 10-school CUSA.

I've started this thread to provide a place for supporters of a 10-team CUSA to make their best case.

Hopefully, some CUSA supporters will set forth the case for a 10-team CUSA here.

.

(12-20-2021 05:57 PM)Milwaukee Wrote:  .

For both sides to have their arguments considered fairly and compared, there needs to be a thread that presents the case for a 10-school CUSA.

I've started this thread to provide a place for supporters of a 10-team CUSA to make their best case.

Hopefully, some CUSA supporters will set forth the case for a 10-team CUSA here.

.

The only real argument for is for basketball scheduling. Which is more than balanced by football scheduling being worse.

I suppose you could try to make a pitch for a football championship game, but that's probably not worth the effort to have (either financially or competitively or even narratively most years).

I guess it builds you a one-more-team buffer from dropping below the minimum number of teams in the event of further realignment.

The argument against on the other hand is money. Money and round-robin football. Money and round-robin football and no great choice to add as a 10th team.

But mostly money.

(12-20-2021 06:16 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  

(12-20-2021 05:45 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(12-20-2021 05:41 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Ten? Probably works better than nine-

Not for football.

Other than that I agree entirely with your post.

The main reason for ten (eventually) is for Media inventory. Nine teams means only four games per weekend vs FIVE games every week. You pickup one more slot for media content and improve your opportunity for exposure and a bigger money contract.

For example the MAC and new SBC will have six and seven games available every week. If your conference only has four you are in bad shape comparing VOLUME of games. You cut that disadvantage some by just adding one and going to ten.

Again it must be the best possible add available and there is no reason to make a move right now imo.

Two notes: ---- The money with ten teams (from CFP) would be identical.

---- You do NOT need ten teams(or more) for a championship game; top two (out of the nine) could be in the league champ. game.


CFP money share amounts (under current rules-which may soon change) only go down if your league goes OVER ten teams.

The SBC has been using the above rules to their advantage for years.

(12-20-2021 06:29 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  

(12-20-2021 06:16 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  

(12-20-2021 05:45 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(12-20-2021 05:41 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Ten? Probably works better than nine-

Not for football.

Other than that I agree entirely with your post.

The main reason for ten (eventually) is for Media inventory. Nine teams means only four games per weekend vs FIVE games every week. You pickup one more slot for media content and improve your opportunity for exposure and a bigger money contract.

For example the MAC and new SBC will have six and seven games available every week. If your conference only has four you are in bad shape comparing VOLUME of games. You cut that disadvantage some by just adding one and going to ten.

Again it must be the best possible add available and there is no reason to make a move right now imo.

By this logic why not add 11 more teams. Then we'd have 10 games to offer every single weekend. Or 21 new teams! Then we'd have 15 games to offer.

While I think 9 is best, I have a 10th that is #1 and miles ahead of the others for me. UConn is a no-brainer:

1. Keeps number of basketball schools small and try to focus on 2 bids.
2. They’re a state flagship.
3. High population area, with lots of folks who have snowbird relatives near FIU.
4. Great stadium, they just need quality opponents to help them fill it.
5. Basketball has helped them create a national brand, which CUSA could use.
6. A former BCS school that can win bowls.
7. Academics.
8. Getting on SNY.
9. The perhaps distant chance we get a home mbb game from them here and there.

(Pasted from my post on “adding one more” thread).

I wouldn't even consider UConn.

I honestly only view 10 teams as a waypoint en route to a 12-team CUSA.

If there are no plans to move to 12, then there's no reason to go to 10.

But if we do plan to remain at 9, we need to have a plan in place for which school(s) to invite in case Realignment Armageddon 2.0 begins. Ideally, we'll at least let a limited number of FCS programs know that they are in the discussion. No guarantees, no promises.

We can speculate about Kennesaw's potential all day. Tarleton may have all the money and support in the world as a D2-to-FCS transitional team, but what how will they perform as a full member? SFA makes sense on paper. What direction does that program move in coming years? What about EKU? UTC? MOST? NCAT? Lamar?

If and when a vacancy does open in CUSA, the school(s) who have continued to improve will be in the discussion, and deservedly so.

Any school who has flatlined as a poor-to-mediocre FCS team and low-end mid-major will be passed over.

I have a LOT of respect for JSU. Just saying that first so you are aware.

However, I disagree with your view.

The SBC existed and thrived on ten teams for many years(with one or two to go).

--- CFP money is maximized; NCAA units, media, sponsors,etc. monies are split fewer ways

--- League has a chance to gain identity

--- Less room at the bottom; nowhere to hide

--- Time for FCS teams to grow and develop

--- Time to find the best additions or for them to grow; develop ;prepare

It is kind of hard to quantify but here is an example. A company starts out small. They get their product and ideas finely honed. Develop market strategies.Make bold experiments and trials with no huge risk since the organization is compact. Once they've "got their stuff together"-- it is time to grow slowly, strategically, and carefully. Methodical planning and measured growth lead to success.

In theory I can see eventually going to twelve-- but in five to eight years.

Some posters want to go to twelve NOW or in a much shorter time-- a big mistake IMHO.

When you consider the weakness of some FBS members (NMSU, FIU) and the newbie FCS folks plus the lack of strong adds--- imo you are just making your problems worse by going too big--too soon.

If you stay at 9, in a few years a current FBS school will be knocking on the door to enter. AAC or SBC will have some unhappy campers soon. No idea which one/s it will be so you will have a pick of a current FBS or some FCS schools. Then decide which has the most potential.

Just going to point out Tarleton MBB has beaten South Al (13) and Air Force (22) in back to back games.

(12-21-2021 09:26 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  In theory I can see eventually going to twelve-- but in five to eight years.

Some posters want to go to twelve NOW or in a much shorter time-- a big mistake IMHO.

When you consider the weakness of some FBS members (NMSU, FIU) and the newbie FCS folks plus the lack of strong adds--- imo you are just making your problems worse by going too big--too soon.

BINGO. I think we need to go to 10 now, because 9 to the average outsider doesn't even seem like a legit conference. Add Stephen F. Austin or Tarleton State in the west to get to 5 teams there. Then I think we take our time adding 2 more teams, and we wait to see which FCS teams step up their budget and facilities to do so. It will become apparent in time. Going too big too soon is absolutely a problem.

Tarleton State is in the Dallas market, the 5th largest TV market in the US, whereas Stephen F. Austin is in the 110th market. Tarleton also is expanding their stadium to a capacity of over 20,000.

(12-22-2021 12:22 AM)sstaedtler88 Wrote:  I think we need to go to 10 now, because 9 to the average outsider doesn't even seem like a legit conference.

Why should I care about this?

Do you think the "average outsider" knows how many teams are in CUSA now?

Do the "ideal number of teams for a legit conference" thoughts of some random average outsider make my school enough more money to outweigh the costs of an additional school in the conference?

Keep the denominator low, try really hard to win, wait for the next reshuffle. That's the strategy.

Let the record show that Tarleton may technically be in the DFW market but Stephenville is about the same distance to Abilene & Waco is at it is from the Metroplex. It is well over an hour through West Texas ranch country to get to the furthest Fort Worth suburbs. No one in the DFW metroplex has Tarleton State on their radar. There are cities in the boonies. And then there is Stephenville that is best known for its rodeo stars.

(12-22-2021 09:24 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(12-22-2021 12:22 AM)sstaedtler88 Wrote:  I think we need to go to 10 now, because 9 to the average outsider doesn't even seem like a legit conference.

Why should I care about this?

Do you think the "average outsider" knows how many teams are in CUSA now?

Do the "ideal number of teams for a legit conference" thoughts of some random average outsider make my school enough more money to outweigh the costs of an additional school in the conference?

Keep the denominator low, try really hard to win, wait for the next reshuffle. That's the strategy.

That's a strategy that you and some others endorse.

There are others who endorse different strategies.

I'd say that sstaedtler88 probably has a good point that, from a public perception and relations perspective, 9 probably comes across as being on the skimpy, anorexic side.

A related and equally important consideration is that a conference with 9 members could easily become a conference with 7 or 8 members, and that makes it seem inherently less stable. Not only "seem" less stable; it would actually be at higher risk of hitting another crisis point.

Adding member #10 would be something like "earthquake protection" or flood insurance. You may not need it today, but if you ever do, you'll really need it.

It would be interesting to know what stage the discussions are in at this point. Still waiting for the next shoe to drop...

Tarleton is a **** candidate. They fake their attendance numbers half of the time. They have less of a fanbase than SHSU. They pumped up their brand new stadium and pushed getting 16,000 fans into the stadium, yet they only drew about 6k. Of course, they reported that 16,000+ were there.

Competitively, they suck. Their basketball “arena” looks like a high school gym. It’s truly pathetic. Lamar is a better add. SFA is a better add. They have no control over the DFW market and are just an over ambitious D2 school with money from daddy A&M. They will stay in the bottom half of a bad FCS conf where they belong.

(12-22-2021 11:48 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  I'd say that sstaedtler88 probably has a good point that, from a public perception and relations perspective, 9 probably comes across as being on the skimpy, anorexic side.

So what?

You know what the line item for "average fan thinks that's the right number of schools" is on the CUSA budget spreadsheet? In the stupidly large 14 team version?

It's barely in the 6 figures. Hardly changes each school's budget at all.

(12-22-2021 11:48 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  A related and equally important consideration is that a conference with 9 members could easily become a conference with 7 or 8 members, and that makes it seem inherently less stable. Not only "seem" less stable; it would actually be at higher risk of hitting another crisis point.

Adding member #10 would be something like "earthquake protection" or flood insurance. You may not need it today, but if you ever do, you'll really need it.

That's what the 9th member is for.

We had 14 teams in this conference. How'd that flood insurance work out? We were below the minimum, but we added 4 more, 2 have to transition, but look at that, the timing works out for just that transition. Perfect.

We survived. If one school leaves in the future, the remaining schools can take some time, look around, see what's out there, see what the state of the G5 world is, and stay put at 8, or add one, or add 6.

If two schools leave, same but remaining schools just really have to hope the transition take two years (as it is this time).

I don't care at all about the "seems" part. The "is" part is real, but what if you lose 3 teams? That logic takes you back to 14 (which, again, didn't work last time). So maybe 16? 18? Where would we all be safe? 40?

(12-22-2021 12:37 PM)inutech Wrote:  Where would we all be safe? 40?

THAT'S IT!!!

CUSA should just invite everyone in FCS. It'll give (many) FCS fans what they've always dreamed of -- a combined FCS and G5 -- while giving CUSA plenty of "earthquake insurance" for the coming Realignment Armageddon 2.0.

Or...?

We could just stay at 9 until one or more teams are demonstrably ready to move up.

Hmmm... tough choice. I say we go with the latter, at least until we know if anything is going to change when it comes to CFP and NCAA Tourney payouts.

If it's worth it financially to add one or more teams, let's explore that option.

In the meantime, I don't believe the Sun Belt (or anyone else) is going to poach more FCS teams in our footprint.

CUSA is in a good place in that regard. If a current FCS school really invests in their facilities and overall program and makes themselves irresistible to us, then we can invite them and move to 10. (Or 11, or 12, if multiple schools make substantial improvements.)

I do think the conference needs to decide on a cap, whether it's 10, 12, or 14. (I really hope it's not more than that. You might as well have two separate conferences once you hit 16.)

But we don't need to expand to 10 unless that 10th school is ready. When will they be ready? Could be now. Could be next year. Could be 5 years from now.

It goes back to what I said earlier... let teams under consideration KNOW they're under consideration. They'll either make necessary improvements or they won't.

In the meantime, we don't have to worry about another conference swooping in and taking them away before we get the chance to invite them.

We only have to worry about other conferences swooping in and poaching our current members.

If/when that happens, those FCS schools we courted would become the top candidates for replacement. And they'll (ideally) be a year or two closer to being "FBS ready" by then.