(03-19-2012 12:46 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  My argument against it is simple none of us would want that league. Also the MAC would likely take us FB only which would certainly be a better option than that league. The "3 conference solution" is taking 3 current conferences and making all 3 weaker. It's not going to happen. If ECU was going to form a new league based on being regional we'd form an east coast league with a lot of current FCS teams who will be FBS very soon. Teams like ODU, JMU, App, Charlotte, Delaware, maybe Georgia State. I don't think we are forming this anytime soon, probably 10-15 years from now at the earliest and only if things continue to break wrong for ECU. You'll argue that's a weaker league than your proposal, and today it is, but 15 years from now who knows. The teams I propose is a bus league or close to it for ECU, which would make up for the massive step back in TV revenue. The SBC part of that 3 conference solution is not saving ECU nearly enough travel costs for what kind of drop in TV deal that league would be looking at. Realistically how much per team do you think that league could get? 200-300k maybe?

I'll give the point out about a new league consisting of the schools you mention. That would be nice for you guys travel-wise.

Aside from that, you are going to have to deal with a big time drop in TV revenue eventually as most people I talk to whom I repect in the business world tell me that the Alliance TV money, if it materializes, will be only temporary. Once that goes away, we're back at the drawing board.

If the schools you mention are ready to go at that point, more power to y'all. Otherwise, I can't forsee ECU fans preferring to play in the MAC over the SBC with USM, Marshall, etc..

Either way, the TV revenue of the 3 conferences that will emerge once the Alliance collapses will be very similar. Geography will be resulting dominant factor. There may be a 4th conference with the schools you mention, but they will be in the same boat as well.

(03-19-2012 01:15 PM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  I'll give the point out about a new league consisting of the schools you mention. That would be nice for you guys travel-wise.

Aside from that, you are going to have to deal with a big time drop in TV revenue eventually as most people I talk to whom I repect in the business world tell me that the Alliance TV money, if it materializes, will be only temporary. Once that goes away, we're back at the drawing board.

If the schools you mention are ready to go at that point, more power to y'all. Otherwise, I can't forsee ECU fans preferring to play in the MAC over the SBC with USM, Marshall, etc..

Either way, the TV revenue of the 3 conferences that will emerge once the Alliance collapses will be very similar. Geography will be resulting dominant factor. There may be a 4th conference with the schools you mention, but they will be in the same boat as well.

Well I have all ideas Marshall would probably do whatever we do, so if we preferred the MAC they would probably join with us. Not to mention do you really think Tulane and USM are going to separate to be in leagues with schools they don't value nearly as much as each other? You are trying to make this thing fit in the best interest of ULL, but that's not how it will break down. If the merger fails and Holland's regional league isn't yet a feasible reality most likely the C-USA side, probably minus UTEP, would back-fill to whatever number they wanted to be at. La Tech would sign up with that group in a second, UNT most likely would as well, and then it would just be a matter of who the collective group of us values the most. It won't break down based on nothing but geography like you want it to. The strongest remaining collection will band together to form a league and then what's left would likely band together.

(03-19-2012 02:10 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  ... Not to mention do you really think Tulane and USM are going to separate to be in leagues with schools they don't value nearly as much as each other? You are trying to make this thing fit in the best interest of ULL,...

I think if they really had to choose sides, Tulane would choose to be with their fellow private schools, Rice, and Tulsa.


As far as the best interests of UL....Actually, I'm not. If I were trying to make a league in the best interests of UL, it would be Rice, North Texas, Arkansas State, Louisiana Tech, Louisiana, Tulane, Southern Miss, and South Alabama.

(03-17-2012 09:04 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-17-2012 06:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Actually what you are saying is that there is no group of schools willing to associate with ECU your fan base believes is worthy of association but they will take sticking with the dregs of a half gutted league and a gutted league by default even though your AD and president seem to be noticing the Alliance ain't what the promoters are making it to be. When the leadership all but says we are signing the agreement to keep this from being even more awful than it is, that speaks volumes.

Yeah that's pretty much it in a harsh way of putting it. I don't however think they are as negative on the alliance as you think they are, but they are obviously trying everything they can to find something better. Better is not any sort of new semi-regional non-AQ league mixed with Sun-Belt/C-USA schools. I think an eventual mid-Atlantic non-AQ league can be formed when schools like ODU, JMU, Charlotte, App, and Delaware move up, but we are looking at 10-15 years from now before that's reasonable. That is something I could see Holland and ECU being potentially interested in, but probably not until most or all of those schools have made it up to FBS and established themselves enough for it to not look like ECU was joining a glorified FCS league. Until something like that becomes reasonable or a better league changes their mind we will just kinda ride out the alliance thing. As for your pop shots at C-USA it still has 2 of our longest standing rivals, USM and Marshall, a really solid team in Tulsa, and the rest of the teams offer either solid basketball history or great baseball history (which is a big deal to ECU to be in a power baseball conference). I'd rather stick with the "dregs" we have been associated then align with new "dregs."

Right now it seems likely that the Alliance is going to add some mix of Sun Belt teams and the teams from the WAC that MWC passed over multiple times.

Not seeing how it is any different from your dismissal of a regional league other than the fact that after your play out the regular season against exactly the line-up you oppose you get to play the western version of the same thing for the championship.

With no interlocking schedules all you get is nominally more interest in USM vs. ECU in California than you had before, almost certainly not enough to move the needle in the ratings.

Net result you have precisely what you oppose except with fewer post-season opportunities for your members.

(03-18-2012 10:19 AM)Usajags Wrote:  CUSA was always a large geographical conference, it once stretched from Army to UTEP to USF. That's really not much bigger then the Big East and Big 12 are now.

For you guys, I think the Big 12 will still add teams, from the Big East and you guys will get your invite. It should really help your basketball team, but for football, I don't think it will be much of a step in competition or prestige. There just isn't much left to the Big East in football.

But Army and USF weren't football members at the same time.

Remember the original CUSA had six football schools. It was a basketball league that gave teams a football home. They added Army (coming off a revival) as football only. ECU was added football only and had that role for four years because the league wasn't going to taint its basketball with the Pirates.

After the first Big East raid, UCF and Marshall were all that were getting in until Tulane blackmailed the addition of Rice, SMU, and Tulsa. The membership (other than Tulane) wanted to be a 9 team circuit focused on football. It was the threat of Tulane joining the WAC and potentially costing CUSA its auto-bids and NCAA revenue distribution that led to going to 12.

(03-19-2012 08:57 AM)CAJUNNATION Wrote:  

(03-17-2012 06:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  ....they will take sticking with the dregs of a half gutted league and a gutted league by default even though your AD and president seem to be noticing the Alliance ain't what the promoters are making it to be. When the leadership all but says we are signing the agreement to keep this from being even more awful than it is, that speaks volumes.

Much like Ron Paul's foreign policy stance, everybody denounces the 3 Conference Solution, but it will eventually be the state of affairs one day because all other options will be proven to be wrong.

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=554300

The only workable three conference solution is this. A couple of schools (Marshall-ECU or Tulsa-USM or ECU-USM) sit down and say this crap ain't going to work. We can't get better by keeping the dead wood.

They then make a decision about what they want. Is it a regional league that is cheap to live in? Is it to be the best possible basketball option in the Eastern and Central time zone? Is it to be the best possible football option in on the Atlantic seaboard or in the south?

Then they invite the schools that fit that model to sit down with them.

The focus determines who you call. If you want to be an Atlantic seaboard conference and basketball is important then the line-up probably starts at ECU, Marshall, runs down to FIU and FAU, runs over to UAB and schools like ODU, Charlotte, UMass, Buffalo, Georgia State are at the table.

The starting point is figuring out where you are going, which goes back to the flaw of the Alliance. The starting point is We got some teams, you got some teams, we don't want to play you, you don't want to play us, let's fill in the gaps and maybe one of the networks we just burned will pay us big dollars.

Now obviously there are fans at 16 current and who knows how many hopefuls who say Let's cobble this together until something better arrives.

Problem 1. Not everyone is getting a call up or to something more desirable.

Problem 2. What happens if Big XII takes Louisville and BYU and the Big East response is to replace Louisville with a school in the region like UMass or responds by Nova moving FBS? No openings are created. We can safely assume that Pac-12 is done adding teams, there's nothing left out there. Big 10 cannot add anyone other than Texas or Notre Dame without losing money. The Big East has Nova, UMass, and Buffalo sitting in the heart of their core school footprint. Speculation on the ACC was 14 was purely a preventative move expecting one or more to cave to SEC overtures which did not happen. SEC probably wants to fix the Mizzou problem but the Mizzou problem exists because they couldn't get one ACC to defect.

The college world might blow up in realignment frenzy but the Pac-12 and Big 10 looked into that abyss and said No. The ACC members tempted to chase SEC dollars said No. Periods of stability aren't unusual. 1959 to 1975 was dead quiet. SWC added Houston, 1978 Pac-8 added two. Ten more years of silence until the Big 10 and SEC started the ball rolling. But from 1959 to 1981 the basic framework of the business side of the game remained constant.

You had some mild bowl expansion, (increased by 3 from 1959 to Houston's entry). The TV model was locked in. The shuffling you saw was on the hoop side of the ledger. The NCAA opened the door to more than one team per conference in 1975 and expanded the bracket. Bang-bang Metro, Sun Belt and Big East all form to take advantage of the change.

Then when the TV model was blown up and the model after that blows up, and then the one after it blows up, realignment has come fast and furious. Now we seem to be settling into a three tier model with the conferences or schools taking an ownership stake at the third tier. If that holds, then we are entering stability.

As I was driving in today flipped through one of those financial gurus on the radio. Caller asked about some investments that "seem hot". The guru pulled out one of the oldest lines. If everyone says now is the time to get into real estate, its time to get out of real estate. If everyone says its time to get in the stock market, its time to get out of the stock market.

Right now everyone think aligning for TV is the play. SEC, ACC, Big 10, Pac-12, and even Big XII all have or are apparently close to blockbuster deals. The networks have finite dollars. They want to spend fewer dollars than advertising and carriage fees will bring in. Media company earnings reports seem to indicate the ad market is much softer than had been believed. Recent data on cord cutters show the typical person giving up cable is under 40, with a college education and is making more than $50,000 a year. Not only is that the advertiser sweet spot, that's the source of carriage fees. Cable nets are going to pay a premium for must watch television to stem the tide. I don't think the Alliance or the Big East for that matter offer the sort of inventory that will bring out premium rights fees. The money spent on the Pac-12 is coming out of the budget for less desirable programming.

The smart play at this point probably isn't chasing TV dollars but figuring out the best way to BCS bust or Bracket bust.

(03-15-2012 04:21 PM)Usajags Wrote:  The SBC needs to get in a room with ECU, USM, UAB, Marshall and Tulane, you could even include Tulsa, let UTEP go to the MWC/WAC. Get them into that regional, conference, contact TV execs and get some numbers and make that presentation.

What could it hurt at this point???

Karl Benson's feelings?

(03-19-2012 04:20 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-17-2012 09:04 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-17-2012 06:55 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Actually what you are saying is that there is no group of schools willing to associate with ECU your fan base believes is worthy of association but they will take sticking with the dregs of a half gutted league and a gutted league by default even though your AD and president seem to be noticing the Alliance ain't what the promoters are making it to be. When the leadership all but says we are signing the agreement to keep this from being even more awful than it is, that speaks volumes.

Yeah that's pretty much it in a harsh way of putting it. I don't however think they are as negative on the alliance as you think they are, but they are obviously trying everything they can to find something better. Better is not any sort of new semi-regional non-AQ league mixed with Sun-Belt/C-USA schools. I think an eventual mid-Atlantic non-AQ league can be formed when schools like ODU, JMU, Charlotte, App, and Delaware move up, but we are looking at 10-15 years from now before that's reasonable. That is something I could see Holland and ECU being potentially interested in, but probably not until most or all of those schools have made it up to FBS and established themselves enough for it to not look like ECU was joining a glorified FCS league. Until something like that becomes reasonable or a better league changes their mind we will just kinda ride out the alliance thing. As for your pop shots at C-USA it still has 2 of our longest standing rivals, USM and Marshall, a really solid team in Tulsa, and the rest of the teams offer either solid basketball history or great baseball history (which is a big deal to ECU to be in a power baseball conference). I'd rather stick with the "dregs" we have been associated then align with new "dregs."

Right now it seems likely that the Alliance is going to add some mix of Sun Belt teams and the teams from the WAC that MWC passed over multiple times.

Not seeing how it is any different from your dismissal of a regional league other than the fact that after your play out the regular season against exactly the line-up you oppose you get to play the western version of the same thing for the championship.

With no interlocking schedules all you get is nominally more interest in USM vs. ECU in California than you had before, almost certainly not enough to move the needle in the ratings.

Net result you have precisely what you oppose except with fewer post-season opportunities for your members.

Because the separate regional league is looking at pulling in what 500k maybe per team? Combined at worst is going to do double that per team. For me to want ECU in a league that's going to be forced to accept a huge TV revenue hit it's gotta get a lot more regional than what you have proposed, or ECU has to be FB only in it. Do you really think the 2 leagues didn't have serious discussions about what each would be looking at revenue wise staying separate vs combining? Do you think the people in charge are just complete idiots? If the money was going to be better, or even comparable separate we'd be staying separate. The only way I'd want to see ECU take a big step back in the short term is if we actually are going to be getting into something that long term is going to be something that can develop real rivalries. Those schools are currently FCS right now, and are not ready. ODU, JMU, App, Charlotte, GSU, and Delaware. All in my opinion have huge potential, especially ODU who I really think can become the ECU of Virginia in terms of taking over a region of the state and having a huge following. This idea is 10 years down the road though at the earliest. Holland has said we want to add schools who will travel and bring fans. There isn't a single Sun-Belt school who would bring more than 200 people to a football game in Greenville, while most of those schools I listed would sell their entire allotment. We have to just get by with the most profitable league possible until either we finally get called up or this league becomes feasible.

Now to sort of agree with b0ndsj0ns.

It makes sense for ECU to want to align with Eastern Seaboard schools. The problem is achieving it.

First. The NE power brokers are always going to have a thing for hoop schools. They will respect a competitive basketball program from what they view as a good basketball league that is playing good football more than what they view as a team coming from a bad basketball league but playing really good football.

Second. You don't achieve your goal by waiting for the stars to align perfectly.

You get there by playing in a conference that is better than the Alliance in basketball that has decent exposure where the power brokers live. If Marshall is of a like mind you sit down and invite UMass, ODU and Charlotte to the conversation. If that goes well you invite Buffalo to the table. You get UAB involved not because they are a straight fit but because they are the next closest program that plays FBS ball and has a hoop reputation. You talk to Delaware, Georgia State, FIU and FAU. You concede that you aren't going to be as good of a football league but you cover the eastern seaboard, you've only got one school you have a long wait for in football.

The league plays football but the goal is as much as possible, the best hoop playing schools along the footprint who have FBS ball, a plan for it, or the ability to transition somewhat smoothly to it. While you are at it, you call Villanova and explore the idea of football only membership to get the relationship.

You actually construct something capable of taking you toward your goal even though it isn't a quick and easy microwave meal.

(03-19-2012 07:31 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Now to sort of agree with b0ndsj0ns.

It makes sense for ECU to want to align with Eastern Seaboard schools. The problem is achieving it.

First. The NE power brokers are always going to have a thing for hoop schools. They will respect a competitive basketball program from what they view as a good basketball league that is playing good football more than what they view as a team coming from a bad basketball league but playing really good football.

Second. You don't achieve your goal by waiting for the stars to align perfectly.

You get there by playing in a conference that is better than the Alliance in basketball that has decent exposure where the power brokers live. If Marshall is of a like mind you sit down and invite UMass, ODU and Charlotte to the conversation. If that goes well you invite Buffalo to the table. You get UAB involved not because they are a straight fit but because they are the next closest program that plays FBS ball and has a hoop reputation. You talk to Delaware, Georgia State, FIU and FAU. You concede that you aren't going to be as good of a football league but you cover the eastern seaboard, you've only got one school you have a long wait for in football.

The league plays football but the goal is as much as possible, the best hoop playing schools along the footprint who have FBS ball, a plan for it, or the ability to transition somewhat smoothly to it. While you are at it, you call Villanova and explore the idea of football only membership to get the relationship.

You actually construct something capable of taking you toward your goal even though it isn't a quick and easy microwave meal.

I think some of the basketball issues could be addressed with some non-FB schools. If we formed a league with ODU and JMU my guess is you could probably talk George Mason and VCU into joining non-FB to stay with their strong Virginia rivals. I'd much prefer to keep the geography tighter if we are going this route. Here is what I would propose

GSU
College of Charleston (non-FB)
ECU
App
Charlotte
ODU
JMU
George Mason (non-FB)
VCU (non-FB but they are talking about maybe starting FB so way long term all sports)
Marshall
Delaware
UMASS

There's a lot of good basketball in that league, a very tight overall geography, and good eastern markets. I don't think it really needs to go all the way to Buffalo or down to Miami. The football today looks awful, and that's what would make a lot of ECU fans sick to their stomachs, but again none of these east coast ideas are reasonable for quite a while.

Boise has proven you can play in a poor football league and gain national respect and the irrational head spinning venom of SEC fans.

(03-20-2012 09:00 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Boise has proven you can play in a poor football league and gain national respect and the irrational head spinning venom of SEC fans.

Sure, if you win pretty much every game in it and all your non-conference games. That's asking a lot of any team to flat out dominate and win 10-12 games a year for a decade straight. It's also not like everyone else isn't trying. If we formed the league I have proposed today ECU and Marshall would probably dominate it for a few years, but those other schools wouldn't continue to be downtrodden bottom feeders forever. In fact I fully expect schools like JMU and App to be very solid very quick. You would probably quickly get parity, and parity in a non-AQ league is viewed as everyone is weak instead of everyone is relatively strong.

(03-20-2012 09:11 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 09:00 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Boise has proven you can play in a poor football league and gain national respect and the irrational head spinning venom of SEC fans.

Sure, if you win pretty much every game in it and all your non-conference games. That's asking a lot of any team to flat out dominate and win 10-12 games a year for a decade straight. It's also not like everyone else isn't trying. If we formed the league I have proposed today ECU and Marshall would probably dominate it for a few years, but those other schools wouldn't continue to be downtrodden bottom feeders forever. In fact I fully expect schools like JMU and App to be very solid very quick. You would probably quickly get parody, and parody in a non-AQ league is viewed as everyone is weak instead of everyone is relatively strong.

I think you meant "parity" rather than "parody".

(03-19-2012 06:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The only workable three conference solution is this. A couple of schools (Marshall-ECU or Tulsa-USM or ECU-USM) sit down and say this crap ain't going to work. We can't get better by keeping the dead wood.

They then make a decision about what they want. Is it a regional league that is cheap to live in? Is it to be the best possible basketball option in the Eastern and Central time zone? Is it to be the best possible football option in on the Atlantic seaboard or in the south?

Then they invite the schools that fit that model to sit down with them.


The smart play at this point probably isn't chasing TV dollars but figuring out the best way to BCS bust or Bracket bust.

I agree with your views just not your outcome.

There is no combination of schools within the WAC/MWC/CUSA/SBC/MAC sphere that will greatly improve any new conference's chances of bracket or BCS busting.

Just take a look around. Missouri State would be a great addition to any league. The only problem is that nobody can offer them anything better than the Valley if they don't want to play FBS football, and they don't.

ODU would be a great addition, but they are no way close to being ready to jump to FBS football.

There just aren't many options on the table to build those bracket busting leagues.

BCS busting? That ship sailed with the last Big East raids.

The best anybody can do at this point is to gather the best all-around programs in your region and build for the future.

That is the 3 conference solution.

(03-20-2012 09:16 AM)fiuphan Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 09:11 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-20-2012 09:00 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Boise has proven you can play in a poor football league and gain national respect and the irrational head spinning venom of SEC fans.

Sure, if you win pretty much every game in it and all your non-conference games. That's asking a lot of any team to flat out dominate and win 10-12 games a year for a decade straight. It's also not like everyone else isn't trying. If we formed the league I have proposed today ECU and Marshall would probably dominate it for a few years, but those other schools wouldn't continue to be downtrodden bottom feeders forever. In fact I fully expect schools like JMU and App to be very solid very quick. You would probably quickly get parody, and parody in a non-AQ league is viewed as everyone is weak instead of everyone is relatively strong.

I think you meant "parity" rather than "parody".

Haha yeah I messed that one up big time.

(03-19-2012 06:22 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  The only workable three conference solution is this. A couple of schools (Marshall-ECU or Tulsa-USM or ECU-USM) sit down and say this crap ain't going to work. We can't get better by keeping the dead wood.

The problem is that the teams that are available are bigger dead wood than the ones in C-USA that you call dead-wood. The C-USA teams are far higher profile universities, have larger budgets, and actually have had more winning over any 10-20 year time frame.
ECU's desire for geography suits only them, and perhaps Marshall. They've tried to play pied piper, but no one will follow. Nor will anyone follow any other single team.

3 Conference Solution version 2.0


WEST

Hawaii
Fresno State
San Jose State
UNLV
Nevada
Utah State

Wyoming
Colorado State
Air Force
New Mexico
New Mexico State
UTEP





CENTRAL

UTSA
Texas State
Tulsa
North Texas
Rice
Louisiana

Arkansas State
Louisiana Tech
Tulane
Southern Miss
South Alabama
UAB





EAST

Western Kentucky
Middle Tennessee
Georgia State
Troy
Florida Atlantic
FIU

Old Dominion
James Madison
Marshall
Appalachain State
UNCC
East Carolina


.
.
.

I like the regional aspect but this is way to unbalanced especially the east with five FCS teams. And why separate Troy from UAB and South it's only two hours going speed limit to get to both of those schools.