(11-12-2013 01:14 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I think expansion has pretty much run its course... I'm sure there will be a few regrets here and there, but overall it transpired in a way that no one really got hurt.

It depends what you mean by "got hurt".

(11-12-2013 10:16 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 01:14 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I think expansion has pretty much run its course... I'm sure there will be a few regrets here and there, but overall it transpired in a way that no one really got hurt.

It depends what you mean by "got hurt".

UC is in a much worse conference situation than we've been in since the early 70s. Even after the Metro blew up, at least in the 90s we were with our rival Louisville and a few other Midwestern teams with Marquette, SLU, and Depaul.

I fall asleep at night with dreams of UConn in the Big 10 and SMU in the Big 12.

But I love the American, and I'm very content with the way things are right now. It's all beyond my control anyway. It's a blast having UConn coming to Dallas for FB, BB, and soccer.

(11-13-2013 08:16 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 10:16 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 01:14 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I think expansion has pretty much run its course... I'm sure there will be a few regrets here and there, but overall it transpired in a way that no one really got hurt.

It depends what you mean by "got hurt".

UC is in a much worse conference situation than we've been in since the early 70s. Even after the Metro blew up, at least in the 90s we were with our rival Louisville and a few other Midwestern teams with Marquette, SLU, and Depaul.

UC has other long time rivals in the conference together like Memphis, USF, UCONN and Temple. It's not like UC is on an island like WVU is now.

(11-13-2013 09:31 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 08:16 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 10:16 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 01:14 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I think expansion has pretty much run its course... I'm sure there will be a few regrets here and there, but overall it transpired in a way that no one really got hurt.

It depends what you mean by "got hurt".

UC is in a much worse conference situation than we've been in since the early 70s. Even after the Metro blew up, at least in the 90s we were with our rival Louisville and a few other Midwestern teams with Marquette, SLU, and Depaul.

UC has other long time rivals in the conference together like Memphis, USF, UCONN and Temple. It's not like UC is on an island like WVU is now.

When did USF, UConn, and Temple become our long-time rivals?? Even being in CUSA with USF, we never developed much of a rivalry with them because our rivals there were basketball based (Memphis, UofL, Marquette, DePaul, UNC-Charlotte). Any UConn rivalry is in its infancy and even that's a stretch. Temple makes even less sense. You could argue we have more of a rivalry with Pitt than Temple. UC and UConn were undoubtedly the two schools affected the most. Not that I expect anyone to care. I don't know why they would.

The American isn't a bad conference at all until you realize how terrible the TV deal and bowl picture is. That's what I have an issue with.

Realignment/Expansion is never just over. Its a fluid situation that has been constantly evolving for as long as we have had conferences in the first place. If you said its done for the next year? Sure. Done for the next 5? Maybe. Done for the next 10? Highly unlikely.

(11-13-2013 10:07 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  Realignment/Expansion is never just over. Its a fluid situation that has been constantly evolving for as long as we have had conferences in the first place. If you said its done for the next year? Sure. Done for the next 5? Maybe. Done for the next 10? Highly unlikely.

The core of realignment is when there is a disruption in the market.

First was the dissolution of the CFA. Prior to that geography, travel, potential rivals drove realignment.

Then we had the increase in outlets. With more channels alignments changed driven greatly by markets.

Now it has been driven by the creation of conference networks. That has been driven by the potential for subscribers.

The next big round will be driven by whatever is needed to capitalize on the changes in the marketplace.

(11-13-2013 11:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 10:07 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  Realignment/Expansion is never just over. Its a fluid situation that has been constantly evolving for as long as we have had conferences in the first place. If you said its done for the next year? Sure. Done for the next 5? Maybe. Done for the next 10? Highly unlikely.

The core of realignment is when there is a disruption in the market.

First was the dissolution of the CFA. Prior to that geography, travel, potential rivals drove realignment.

Then we had the increase in outlets. With more channels alignments changed driven greatly by markets.

Now it has been driven by the creation of conference networks. That has been driven by the potential for subscribers.

The next big round will be driven by whatever is needed to capitalize on the changes in the marketplace.

Exactly, the need for new revenue, or new revenue streams. One immutable law of life is that change is not only inevitable, change is constant. If we lived long enough we would even see the boulders around us change. We may not have major realignment in the next few years, or we could, but we will have more major realignment. That's just the way life works.

(11-13-2013 10:07 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 09:31 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 08:16 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 10:16 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 01:14 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I think expansion has pretty much run its course... I'm sure there will be a few regrets here and there, but overall it transpired in a way that no one really got hurt.

It depends what you mean by "got hurt".

UC is in a much worse conference situation than we've been in since the early 70s. Even after the Metro blew up, at least in the 90s we were with our rival Louisville and a few other Midwestern teams with Marquette, SLU, and Depaul.

UC has other long time rivals in the conference together like Memphis, USF, UCONN and Temple. It's not like UC is on an island like WVU is now.

When did USF, UConn, and Temple become our long-time rivals?? Even being in CUSA with USF, we never developed much of a rivalry with them because our rivals there were basketball based (Memphis, UofL, Marquette, DePaul, UNC-Charlotte). Any UConn rivalry is in its infancy and even that's a stretch. Temple makes even less sense. You could argue we have more of a rivalry with Pitt than Temple. UC and UConn were undoubtedly the two schools affected the most. Not that I expect anyone to care. I don't know why they would.

The American isn't a bad conference at all until you realize how terrible the TV deal and bowl picture is. That's what I have an issue with.

Realignment/Expansion is never just over. Its a fluid situation that has been constantly evolving for as long as we have had conferences in the first place. If you said its done for the next year? Sure. Done for the next 5? Maybe. Done for the next 10? Highly unlikely.

I agree, we're already expected to grow to 12 within the next few years with another raid of the A-10 who will without a doubt raid some of the other lower conferences like the CAA, MAAC or Horizon. Are the big FB conferences done for a little bit? Sure, but thats only because no one wants to challenge the GoR just yet. If one felt they needed to they would but right now no one needs to. Everyone just wants to see how the playoff will work first. There are only a couple of scenarios where any of the P5 expand.

1. The Big XII finally go back to 12.

2. ND decides to fully join the ACC for whatever reason and they look for a 16th school to come aboard.

The rest just rather wait for the GoR to start expiring. If there is a conference who would challenge the GoR you can bet it's going to be the Pac-12. They have limited options and have their sights set on Texas and it's 3 buddies.

(11-13-2013 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 11:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 10:07 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  Realignment/Expansion is never just over. Its a fluid situation that has been constantly evolving for as long as we have had conferences in the first place. If you said its done for the next year? Sure. Done for the next 5? Maybe. Done for the next 10? Highly unlikely.

The core of realignment is when there is a disruption in the market.

First was the dissolution of the CFA. Prior to that geography, travel, potential rivals drove realignment.

Then we had the increase in outlets. With more channels alignments changed driven greatly by markets.

Now it has been driven by the creation of conference networks. That has been driven by the potential for subscribers.

The next big round will be driven by whatever is needed to capitalize on the changes in the marketplace.

Exactly, the need for new revenue, or new revenue streams. One immutable law of life is that change is not only inevitable, change is constant. If we lived long enough we would even see the boulders around us change. We may not have major realignment in the next few years, or we could, but we will have more major realignment. That's just the way life works.

What I find fascinating is if you go long view (in sports terms) and watch the ebb and flow just over the past 60 years you see a lot of shifts and changes but you also see core groups of schools that repeatedly end up with each other despite periods of being apart. Then there is cast of risers and fallers.

For example in the AAC Houston, Tulsa, and Cincinnati at one time were all together in the Missouri Valley (1957-1960 for all three), then reunite 1996-2005 in CUSA. Bradley, St. Louis and Wichita State were with them in the Valley and all ended up dropping football.

You can follow the same path with other grouping. Memphis, Tulsa, Cincinnati were together in the Valley 1968-70 and reunite in CUSA 1995-2005. New Mexico State gets left behind and bounces around. West Texas drops to Division II.

Those connections happen and fall apart as the market changes.

When you look ahead I think you have to identify not only how the market changes and what is required to take advantage of those changes but also the comfort level of associating with those you've associated with before. All things being equal in choosing future partners the history says you are more likely to choose those you have familiarity with.

(11-13-2013 12:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 11:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 10:07 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  Realignment/Expansion is never just over. Its a fluid situation that has been constantly evolving for as long as we have had conferences in the first place. If you said its done for the next year? Sure. Done for the next 5? Maybe. Done for the next 10? Highly unlikely.

The core of realignment is when there is a disruption in the market.

First was the dissolution of the CFA. Prior to that geography, travel, potential rivals drove realignment.

Then we had the increase in outlets. With more channels alignments changed driven greatly by markets.

Now it has been driven by the creation of conference networks. That has been driven by the potential for subscribers.

The next big round will be driven by whatever is needed to capitalize on the changes in the marketplace.

Exactly, the need for new revenue, or new revenue streams. One immutable law of life is that change is not only inevitable, change is constant. If we lived long enough we would even see the boulders around us change. We may not have major realignment in the next few years, or we could, but we will have more major realignment. That's just the way life works.

What I find fascinating is if you go long view (in sports terms) and watch the ebb and flow just over the past 60 years you see a lot of shifts and changes but you also see core groups of schools that repeatedly end up with each other despite periods of being apart. Then there is cast of risers and fallers.

For example in the AAC Houston, Tulsa, and Cincinnati at one time were all together in the Missouri Valley (1957-1960 for all three), then reunite 1996-2005 in CUSA. Bradley, St. Louis and Wichita State were with them in the Valley and all ended up dropping football.

You can follow the same path with other grouping. Memphis, Tulsa, Cincinnati were together in the Valley 1968-70 and reunite in CUSA 1995-2005. New Mexico State gets left behind and bounces around. West Texas drops to Division II.

Those connections happen and fall apart as the market changes.

When you look ahead I think you have to identify not only how the market changes and what is required to take advantage of those changes but also the comfort level of associating with those you've associated with before. All things being equal in choosing future partners the history says you are more likely to choose those you have familiarity with.

Wow. The Missouri Valley has had some really good BB programs:

Creighton
Wichita State
St. Louis
Bradley
Cincinnati
Houston
Tulsa
Memphis

Bradley was a two-time NCAA runner-up in the 1950's (like Butler did recently) and they won several NIT championships when that actually meant something. They also played the longest game in NCAA history, a loss to Cincinnati in seven OT's.

(11-13-2013 12:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 12:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 11:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 10:07 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  Realignment/Expansion is never just over. Its a fluid situation that has been constantly evolving for as long as we have had conferences in the first place. If you said its done for the next year? Sure. Done for the next 5? Maybe. Done for the next 10? Highly unlikely.

The core of realignment is when there is a disruption in the market.

First was the dissolution of the CFA. Prior to that geography, travel, potential rivals drove realignment.

Then we had the increase in outlets. With more channels alignments changed driven greatly by markets.

Now it has been driven by the creation of conference networks. That has been driven by the potential for subscribers.

The next big round will be driven by whatever is needed to capitalize on the changes in the marketplace.

Exactly, the need for new revenue, or new revenue streams. One immutable law of life is that change is not only inevitable, change is constant. If we lived long enough we would even see the boulders around us change. We may not have major realignment in the next few years, or we could, but we will have more major realignment. That's just the way life works.

What I find fascinating is if you go long view (in sports terms) and watch the ebb and flow just over the past 60 years you see a lot of shifts and changes but you also see core groups of schools that repeatedly end up with each other despite periods of being apart. Then there is cast of risers and fallers.

For example in the AAC Houston, Tulsa, and Cincinnati at one time were all together in the Missouri Valley (1957-1960 for all three), then reunite 1996-2005 in CUSA. Bradley, St. Louis and Wichita State were with them in the Valley and all ended up dropping football.

You can follow the same path with other grouping. Memphis, Tulsa, Cincinnati were together in the Valley 1968-70 and reunite in CUSA 1995-2005. New Mexico State gets left behind and bounces around. West Texas drops to Division II.

Those connections happen and fall apart as the market changes.

When you look ahead I think you have to identify not only how the market changes and what is required to take advantage of those changes but also the comfort level of associating with those you've associated with before. All things being equal in choosing future partners the history says you are more likely to choose those you have familiarity with.

It all makes a lot of sense. Familiarity may breed contempt, but since the original associations were formed out of shared goals, geography, and a similar sense of mission, then naturally after a period of separation they will tend to gravitate back to one another.

I think we will get bigger first and immediately divide back into groupings that are more familiar within the larger structure. Then depending on the market it will eventually break apart again.

I think the only variants from your theory will be (in the long term) schools like Central Florida which grow well beyond their old peers in both size and academics. In those rare cases entirely new associations may be in order. But, I do think on the grand scale those kinds of upsides will be extremely rare. And I am projecting that academic standing will improve significantly at Central Florida, but certainly their growth is already beyond many that were peer institutions a decade ago.

(11-13-2013 12:22 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  1. The Big XII finally go back to 12.

2. ND decides to fully join the ACC for whatever reason and they look for a 16th school to come aboard.

1. depends on a pair of schools presenting as more appealing then they are at present, which does take some time, but could well happen over the coming five years.

If a set of four presents, that could be even easier, since the divisional picture is simpler with three existing Big12 schools moving to the East division than with four existing Big12 schools moving to the East division.

2. seems to depend on the P5 conferences forcing the issue, and since a majority of conferences that would take Notre Dame won't get Notre Dame if the issue is forced, that seems politically unlikely.

(11-13-2013 01:37 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think the only variants from your theory will be (in the long term) schools like Central Florida which grow well beyond their old peers in both size and academics. In those rare cases entirely new associations may be in order. But, I do think on the grand scale those kinds of upsides will be extremely rare. And I am projecting that academic standing will improve significantly at Central Florida, but certainly their growth is already beyond many that were peer institutions a decade ago.

And then there are the recruiting grounds issues ~ Texas, California and Florida stand out as recruiting grounds. WVU in particular would highly value an annual conference game trip to Florida, just as UC values it now.

(11-13-2013 11:05 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 10:07 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  Realignment/Expansion is never just over. Its a fluid situation that has been constantly evolving for as long as we have had conferences in the first place. If you said its done for the next year? Sure. Done for the next 5? Maybe. Done for the next 10? Highly unlikely.

The core of realignment is when there is a disruption in the market.

First was the dissolution of the CFA. Prior to that geography, travel, potential rivals drove realignment.

Then we had the increase in outlets. With more channels alignments changed driven greatly by markets.

Now it has been driven by the creation of conference networks. That has been driven by the potential for subscribers.

The next big round will be driven by whatever is needed to capitalize on the changes in the marketplace.

Great post because nobody knows what the next big earth mover could be.

There could be a downsizing/decline in value among programs in college football. What if cultural interest in football changes and is replaced by soccer in the coming decades? Demographics shift to the point where ESPN wants to put all of its money into soccer instead of football. The schools that over did it with 100k stadiums may be sorry.

(11-12-2013 04:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  With CUSA's TV deal expiring in 2016 and apparent discord over whether there should be expansion by taking two in the west, two in the east, or one each, or even expand at all, coupled with Bankowsky's recent statement that USM was absolutely going to the west with the 7th western school not set yet. They are ripe for something to happen.

No need for C-USA to do anything until it is clear the MWC is not adding BYU, and then offering UTEP for a 14-team conference.

ULL, Arkansas State, and Texas State have no other options and each would leap at an offer to replace the Miners and join C-USA.

With the West tightly set up with the four Texas anchor programs (UTEP, Rice, North Texas, UTSA) plus Louisiana Tech and USM, there is no incentive for the West programs to favor expansion while the Miners remain in the fold.

(11-13-2013 10:07 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 09:31 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 08:16 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 10:16 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 01:14 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I think expansion has pretty much run its course... I'm sure there will be a few regrets here and there, but overall it transpired in a way that no one really got hurt.

It depends what you mean by "got hurt".

UC is in a much worse conference situation than we've been in since the early 70s. Even after the Metro blew up, at least in the 90s we were with our rival Louisville and a few other Midwestern teams with Marquette, SLU, and Depaul.

UC has other long time rivals in the conference together like Memphis, USF, UCONN and Temple. It's not like UC is on an island like WVU is now.

The American isn't a bad conference at all until you realize how terrible the TV deal and bowl picture is. That's what I have an issue with.

Agree on the bowls. Now the TV do you mean $$ or the actual tv deal? I thought the exposure/actual TV airtime was better than the old big east?

(11-13-2013 10:05 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 10:07 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 09:31 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 08:16 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 10:16 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  It depends what you mean by "got hurt".

UC is in a much worse conference situation than we've been in since the early 70s. Even after the Metro blew up, at least in the 90s we were with our rival Louisville and a few other Midwestern teams with Marquette, SLU, and Depaul.

UC has other long time rivals in the conference together like Memphis, USF, UCONN and Temple. It's not like UC is on an island like WVU is now.

The American isn't a bad conference at all until you realize how terrible the TV deal and bowl picture is. That's what I have an issue with.

Agree on the bowls. Now the TV do you mean $$ or the actual tv deal? I thought the exposure/actual TV airtime was better than the old big east?

The tv exposure is great. The money is non-existent.

(11-13-2013 09:43 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(11-12-2013 04:45 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  With CUSA's TV deal expiring in 2016 and apparent discord over whether there should be expansion by taking two in the west, two in the east, or one each, or even expand at all, coupled with Bankowsky's recent statement that USM was absolutely going to the west with the 7th western school not set yet. They are ripe for something to happen.

No need for C-USA to do anything until it is clear the MWC is not adding BYU, and then offering UTEP for a 14-team conference.

ULL, Arkansas State, and Texas State have no other options and each would leap at an offer to replace the Miners and join C-USA.

With the West tightly set up with the four Texas anchor programs (UTEP, Rice, North Texas, UTSA) plus Louisiana Tech and USM, there is no incentive for the West programs to favor expansion while the Miners remain in the fold.

CUSA doesn't really lose much in terms of geography if the MW takes UTEP. Texas State actual tightens the CUSA West anchor footprint in Texas. That said, I'm not sure UTEP is the top choose if the MW ever gets BYU to join. They might try for Houston or UTSA instead. UTEP, located far from mostnof the states population, isn't all that helpful in getting into Texas for recruiting.

(11-13-2013 09:43 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  No need for C-USA to do anything until it is clear the MWC is not adding BYU, and then offering UTEP for a 14-team conference.

ULL, Arkansas State, and Texas State have no other options and each would leap at an offer to replace the Miners and join C-USA.

With the West tightly set up with the four Texas anchor programs (UTEP, Rice, North Texas, UTSA) plus Louisiana Tech and USM, there is no incentive for the West programs to favor expansion while the Miners remain in the fold.

All true.

(11-13-2013 10:49 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  C-USA doesn't really lose much in terms of geography if the MW takes UTEP. Texas State actual tightens the CUSA West anchor footprint in Texas. That said, I'm not sure UTEP is the top choose if the MW ever gets BYU to join. They might try for Houston or UTSA instead. UTEP, located far from most of the states population, isn't all that helpful in getting into Texas for recruiting.

BYU: Not rejoining the MWC, barring some really extreme change in circumstances. Possibility (within the next 10 years): Less than 1%.
UTEP: Probably not joining the MWC, but possible. 10%.
Any Central- or Eastern-Time-Zone-based member of C-USA or AAC: Absolutely not. 0%.

(11-13-2013 11:35 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  BYU: Not rejoining the MWC, barring some really extreme change in circumstances. Possibility (within the next 10 years): Less than 1%.
UTEP: Probably not joining the MWC, but possible. 10%.
Any Central- or Eastern-Time-Zone-based member of C-USA or AAC: Absolutely not. 0%.

It is nice to dream that BYU issues a final No and the MWC moves on, the Texas four emerge as dominant in C-USA, the MWC can't ignore Texas and moves to 16 all at once with UTEP, Rice, UTSA, and North Texas, and these four programs actually add value by 2016 in expanding the MWC pie.