(12-07-2010 01:41 PM)ECUgradstudent Wrote:  I agree with what you are saying. Not only are the "have" category splitting into "haves and have nots" (SEC, Big 10, & PAC 12 versus ACC, Big East, & Big 12), the "have not" categories are splitting as well even within a conference like CUSA.

The MWC had that separation. Utah, BYU, and TCU spent more money and made better coaching hires.

By the way, it's not just about fan support for the non-AQs. TCU, for example, funded their program with a small group of wealthy boosters (IIRC they called themselves "the Committee of 100"), not by selling out their stadium and generating ticket revenue. The money has to come from somewhere; TCU found a way even though they don't fill the stadium every week like BYU does.

(12-07-2010 02:01 PM)MagicKnightmare Wrote:  I think the only way this would work in favor of the school who are better in sports is for them to leave CUSA and MWC to start their own conference and eventually push for an AQ bid. If they did and UCF, ECU, Nevada, and Boise stayed on track, it could easily happen.

I can tell you why this won't work...

If the best of the rest got together and created a new conference, it would then have to prove itself worthy before getting the AQ label. So, as soon as a few of the schools get to the next level so that the conference would earn the AQ label, the current AQ conferences would just pluck them from this new conference just like they have in the past. History teaches us something, always. And what it has taught us here is if we get close to that label, they take it from us. Look at the Big East now... Louisville, South Florida, UC, and TCU were all in C-USA at one time (although TCU moved to the MWC). Utah and TCU both belonged to the MWC. They pluck the teams, and move them up, not the conference. What in the world makes any of us think that will change? There is not one "best of the rest" team out there now, that if they became part of a new conference would not leave that conference in a heartbeat to move up to a BCS label conference. They wouldn't risk it. Why? Because the other BCS conference are the ones that have the ultimate say in who receives the BCS label. And there is not a damn thing any of us can do about it unless politics get involved. That has slim chance of happening because even the politicians are on the hook. The BCS has just enough members to hold off any political move against them. It's a monopoly like no other, and one that doesn't have to pay taxes at that. I hate it as much as anyone, and I'm not stating it because I like it, it's just fact - everything else is just fantasy.

Up2

Let's see.. on the MWC ledger we have:

Air Force
Boise State
Cal-State University @ Fresno
Colorado State
New Mexico
Nevada (which is probably the biggest gem in all this re-alignment)
San Diego State
UNLV
Wyoming

(and possibly Hawaii joining as FB-only)

Combine that with the name-brand schools in CUSA-West:

Rice
SMU
Houston
UTEP
Tulane
Tulsa

That's a pretty strong 16-school conference merger shaping up, is it not?

(12-07-2010 02:19 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-07-2010 01:41 PM)ECUgradstudent Wrote:  I agree with what you are saying. Not only are the "have" category splitting into "haves and have nots" (SEC, Big 10, & PAC 12 versus ACC, Big East, & Big 12), the "have not" categories are splitting as well even within a conference like CUSA.

The MWC had that separation. Utah, BYU, and TCU spent more money and made better coaching hires.

By the way, it's not just about fan support for the non-AQs. TCU, for example, funded their program with a small group of wealthy boosters (IIRC they called themselves "the Committee of 100"), not by selling out their stadium and generating ticket revenue. The money has to come from somewhere; TCU found a way even though they don't fill the stadium every week like BYU does.

You are right. Same thing is happening in CUSA. Speaking of my specific school, they just raised over half in silent phase for a practice arena gym for separate facilities for men and women's basketball, all new basketball only support facilities & offices, and Hall of Fame in this economy. The same is going on at UCF and Houston with facilities to name just a few. Plus all three of those schools have new basketball coach hires that have teams going in right direction.

(12-07-2010 01:53 PM)ecu92 Wrote:  CUSA, as we know it, will not exist in 3 or 4 years.

The schools with the larger budgets will affilate with each other. Schools that can't draw 20k a game will ultimately have to affiliate with each other.

A league of non-AQ teams with respectable football attendance would be either a mighty small league or a round-the-world league.

2009 NCAA official attendance figures

Non-AQ teams with reported averages above 30,000 in 2009:

Air Force
Boise State
BYU (going indy)
ECU
Fresno State
Hawaii
Navy
Southern Miss
TCU (joining Big East)
UCF
Utah (joining Pac-12)

UTEP at 29,010 and Army at 27,997 just miss the cut.

Even if you add UTEP and Army, you have to go halfway around the world from Orlando to Honolulu to get your league up to 10 teams.

And of those ten, only three (Air Force, ECU, and UCF) average over 35,000 per home game. Filling out a round-the-world league with seven teams between 28,000 and 35,000 in attendance won't excite anyone. If you have to travel 5,000 miles just to grab a few conference-mates whose attendance is far below the average home attendance for the median AQ-conference team, what's the point.

Bottom line, no AQ league will be impressed by an attendance average of 25,000, and no one will care if a school that averages 25,000 laughs at a school that averages only 15,000. In the eyes of the AQ world, both are inadequate.