(02-12-2019 01:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Forget about some huge swap of schools that isn't going to happen.

If what these schools really want is to save money, they would have one conference office administer both conferences and each conference could cut its overhead almost in half. Each school would get a few hundred thousand more each year due to less money being skimmed off the top for conference overhead.

There you go ... hoping that "Alliance or Partnership" in the thread title meant something like this is why I clicked on the thread, only to find another of the unending series of CUSA/SBC reshuffle threads.

(02-17-2019 12:48 AM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  unless at-large bids are on the table for the new league, I just don't see the point.

This is part of why this never would work in the real world as it is imagined in the latest reshuffle set out ...

(1) A regional reshuffle between the two won't ever give an alignment that makes 2/3 of each conference happy to do the change, so it's not on the table. If it could, it would already have happened.

(2) A tiered reshuffle between the two won't ever get the schools relegated to the lower tier to support it, so won't ever get an alignment that makes 2/3 of each conference happy.

(3) An "airport meeting" breakaway to build an upper tier above both the existing CUSA and SBC can't happen because the MWC airport meeting happened, and the NCAA sat down and figured out how to revise the Tourney autobid qualification rule (aka "continuity") to avoid dangling the incentive for one to happen again, so that supposed "upper tier" would be relying on at-large bids to get their champion to the Tourney, for eight years AFAIR. And it couldn't be part of the CFP contract until the next CFP contract negotiation, so would be relying on (even more unlikely) at-large bids for the NY6 as well.