(03-31-2013 10:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 10:47 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Hoops money would have been a much larger factor. To do what they would have needed to do, dissolve both conferences to get able to go out on the free market, they would have lost about 20 million dollars at least.

They only had to dissolve one conference. Plus, they could have negotiated a deal with the exiting schools. They could have negotiated a 50-50 deal with Memphis. That would have allowed CUSA to keep half of the Memphis NCAA credits.

The check is made out to the conference: its officially a conference champions tournament with additional invited at-large schools, and all of the schools "earn" the units appearing as a representative of their conference.

What the NCAA told CUSA and MWC was that future NCAA units owed to the conference that was dissolved would cease to be owed, and the total pool of units would just be that much smaller when the appearance money was next distributed.

The reason that the deal between the residual schools of the Old Big East and the C7 schools could involve the C7 schools taking "their" units was that the Old Big East formally still exists, just with a new name to be announced later ... the Big TBA. Satisfying the deal will involve the Big TBA forward the units corresponding to C7 appearances, until the Marquette appearance money for this year's tournament stops arriving in six year's time.

(03-30-2013 10:18 PM)PistolChad Wrote:  MWC and CUSA should have merged as originally planned.

Now CUSA is just the Sunbelt. UTEP, Rice, Marshall and Southern Miss deserve better.

I'm wondering if this is not some diabolical plot of Benson to destroy CUSA by pimping them the low hanging fruit of the SBC and replacing them with App State and Ga Southern, who actually play good football.

Just kidding, WKU and MTSU or classy schools and you should be proud to have them. The others, not so much.

(03-31-2013 01:39 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 10:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 10:47 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Hoops money would have been a much larger factor. To do what they would have needed to do, dissolve both conferences to get able to go out on the free market, they would have lost about 20 million dollars at least.

They only had to dissolve one conference. Plus, they could have negotiated a deal with the exiting schools. They could have negotiated a 50-50 deal with Memphis. That would have allowed CUSA to keep half of the Memphis NCAA credits.

The check is made out to the conference: its officially a conference champions tournament with additional invited at-large schools, and all of the schools "earn" the units appearing as a representative of their conference.

What the NCAA told CUSA and MWC was that future NCAA units owed to the conference that was dissolved would cease to be owed, and the total pool of units would just be that much smaller when the appearance money was next distributed.
The reason that the deal between the residual schools of the Old Big East and the C7 schools could involve the C7 schools taking "their" units was that the Old Big East formally still exists, just with a new name to be announced later ... the Big TBA. Satisfying the deal will involve the Big TBA forward the units corresponding to C7 appearances, until the Marquette appearance money for this year's tournament stops arriving in six year's time.

Thats false. The pool of units does not shrink. If a conference dissloves, the units are no longer conference property. At that point they follow the team that earned them. If CUSA dissolved, Memphis would get those credits--they dont just dissappear. The only thing that would have shrunk if either CUSA or the MW dissolved is the total number of lague auto-bids (it would have been reduced by one). The total number of slots in the touranment and the number of credits awarded in future tournaments would remain unchanged.

By the way, the C-7 isnt really keeping thier units. The existing C-TBA will still receive those units because C-TBA still exists. However, the C-7 had a "pre-nup" agreement signed back in 2005 that allows the basketball schools (or the football schools) to intitiate a "split" of the conference assets if they left as a group. The C-7 exercised this right. The C-7 gets to keep thier credits due to this agreement. The NCAA has nothing to do with it. Effectively, the C-TBA will recieve a check from the NCAA for the C-7 credits. Then, C-TBA will write a check to the C-7 for the value of the C-7 credits in order to comply with the conditions of the "pre nup" split agreement.

As explainted before, a dissolving conference causes the credits to revert to the school that earned them. Since the vast majority of the credits resided in the MW, it would have been best to dissolve the MW. Then those credits would follow those schools to C-USA. By not dissolving C-USA, C-USA would have been able to keep the credits from Memphis and Houston (who were heading elsewhere). Since all the MW schools with credits (other than SDSU) would be joining CUSA, thier credits could also be added to the C-USA confernece pot (along with those from Memphis and Houston). The only credits that would have been lost are the SDSU credits (since they were going to C-TBA).

(03-31-2013 08:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 01:39 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 10:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 10:47 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Hoops money would have been a much larger factor. To do what they would have needed to do, dissolve both conferences to get able to go out on the free market, they would have lost about 20 million dollars at least.

They only had to dissolve one conference. Plus, they could have negotiated a deal with the exiting schools. They could have negotiated a 50-50 deal with Memphis. That would have allowed CUSA to keep half of the Memphis NCAA credits.

The check is made out to the conference: its officially a conference champions tournament with additional invited at-large schools, and all of the schools "earn" the units appearing as a representative of their conference.

What the NCAA told CUSA and MWC was that future NCAA units owed to the conference that was dissolved would cease to be owed, and the total pool of units would just be that much smaller when the appearance money was next distributed.
The reason that the deal between the residual schools of the Old Big East and the C7 schools could involve the C7 schools taking "their" units was that the Old Big East formally still exists, just with a new name to be announced later ... the Big TBA. Satisfying the deal will involve the Big TBA forward the units corresponding to C7 appearances, until the Marquette appearance money for this year's tournament stops arriving in six year's time.

Thats false. The pool of units does not shrink. If a conference dissloves, the units are no longer conference property. At that point they follow the team that earned them. If CUSA dissolved, Memphis would get those credits--they dont just dissappear.

The C-7 isnt really keeping thier units. The existing C-TBA will still receive those units because C-TBA still exists. However, the C-7 had a "pre-nup" agreement signed back n 2005 that allows the basketball schoolr (or the football schools) to intitiate a "split" of the conference assets if they left as a group. The C-7 exercised this right. The C-7 gets to keep thier credits due to this agreement. The NCAA has nothing to do with it. Effectively, the C-TBA will recieve a check from the NCAA fro the C-7 credits. Then, C-TBA will write a check to the C-7 for the value of the C-7 credits in order to comply with the conditions of the "pre nup" split agreement.

So, the reality is, any school leaving the dissolved conference would have recieved its NCAA credits. Since the vast majority of the credits resided in the MW, it would have been best to dissolve the MW. Then those credits would follow the schools to C-USA. By not dissolving C-USA, C-USA would have been able to keep the credits from Memphis and Houston. Since all the MW schools with credits (other than SDSU) would be joining CUSA, thier credits could also be added to the C-USA confernece pot. The only credits that would have been lost are the SDSU credits (since they were going to C-TBA).

actually this is false...
San Diego St like you mentioned 7 units next year
BYU 7 units next year from MWC
Utah 1 unit next year from MWC
and now Boise this year 1 unit next year

so 16 units would have been lost...
UNLV- 6 units next year
Colo St 2 units next year
NM 5 units next year
would have kept only 13 units.

by comparison- Memphis only has 8 units next year and Houston has 1.

(03-30-2013 07:13 PM)billings Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 07:04 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Quite the revolving door in CUSA. Still seems to me like they've added too many schools too quickly.

(Departing schools in strikeout, incoming schools in underline.)

Marshall
UAB
USM
Rice
UTEP

UCF
ECU
Memphis
Tulsa
SMU
Houston
Tulane

ODU
Charlotte
FAU
FIU
MTSU
La Tech
UNT
UTSA
WKU

really surprised they did not try to hold at around a constant 12. Sure glad the MWC did not overreact and invite a bunch of FCS schools with the new pay for performance rules coming into play

Doesn't really matter. The Big Metro = CUSA = Sun Belt.

They're all pretty much the same in most people's mind, they all are fighting for the crumbs, none of them really matter in the big scheme of things in regards to major college sports.

(03-31-2013 08:46 PM)Fireman451 Wrote:  Doesn't really matter. The Big Metro = CUSA = Sun Belt.

They're all pretty much the same in most people's mind.

Yes, that is what the Big TBA lost when the Boise State move fell apart ~ with Boise State, they would have been the clear "Beast of the Rest" until proven otherwise.

As they are set up now, they have to consistently claim the Group of Five sopt and earn multiple NCAA bids in order to gain that status, which is a job of multiple years.

(03-31-2013 08:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  By the way, the C-7 isnt really keeping thier units. ... Effectively, the C-TBA will recieve a check from the NCAA for the C-7 credits. Then, C-TBA will write a check to the C-7 for the value of the C-7 credits.

Yes, exactly as I said.

What you are saying on the rest doesn't line up with reporting on the affair, but then reporting on these things is often sloppy, so I'll have another look at the Div1 bylaws when I have a chance.

(03-31-2013 08:46 PM)Fireman451 Wrote:  Doesn't really matter. The Big Metro = CUSA = Sun Belt.

They're all pretty much the same in most people's mind, they all are fighting for the crumbs, none of them really matter in the big scheme of things in regards to major college sports.

I notice you left out the MAC. I don't suppose Central Michigan's football win over Iowa back in September had anything to do with that...

(03-31-2013 08:19 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 08:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 01:39 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 10:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 10:47 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Hoops money would have been a much larger factor. To do what they would have needed to do, dissolve both conferences to get able to go out on the free market, they would have lost about 20 million dollars at least.

They only had to dissolve one conference. Plus, they could have negotiated a deal with the exiting schools. They could have negotiated a 50-50 deal with Memphis. That would have allowed CUSA to keep half of the Memphis NCAA credits.

The check is made out to the conference: its officially a conference champions tournament with additional invited at-large schools, and all of the schools "earn" the units appearing as a representative of their conference.

What the NCAA told CUSA and MWC was that future NCAA units owed to the conference that was dissolved would cease to be owed, and the total pool of units would just be that much smaller when the appearance money was next distributed.
The reason that the deal between the residual schools of the Old Big East and the C7 schools could involve the C7 schools taking "their" units was that the Old Big East formally still exists, just with a new name to be announced later ... the Big TBA. Satisfying the deal will involve the Big TBA forward the units corresponding to C7 appearances, until the Marquette appearance money for this year's tournament stops arriving in six year's time.

Thats false. The pool of units does not shrink. If a conference dissloves, the units are no longer conference property. At that point they follow the team that earned them. If CUSA dissolved, Memphis would get those credits--they dont just dissappear.

The C-7 isnt really keeping thier units. The existing C-TBA will still receive those units because C-TBA still exists. However, the C-7 had a "pre-nup" agreement signed back n 2005 that allows the basketball schoolr (or the football schools) to intitiate a "split" of the conference assets if they left as a group. The C-7 exercised this right. The C-7 gets to keep thier credits due to this agreement. The NCAA has nothing to do with it. Effectively, the C-TBA will recieve a check from the NCAA fro the C-7 credits. Then, C-TBA will write a check to the C-7 for the value of the C-7 credits in order to comply with the conditions of the "pre nup" split agreement.

So, the reality is, any school leaving the dissolved conference would have recieved its NCAA credits. Since the vast majority of the credits resided in the MW, it would have been best to dissolve the MW. Then those credits would follow the schools to C-USA. By not dissolving C-USA, C-USA would have been able to keep the credits from Memphis and Houston. Since all the MW schools with credits (other than SDSU) would be joining CUSA, thier credits could also be added to the C-USA confernece pot. The only credits that would have been lost are the SDSU credits (since they were going to C-TBA).

actually this is false...
San Diego St like you mentioned 7 units next year
BYU 7 units next year from MWC
Utah 1 unit next year from MWC
and now Boise this year 1 unit next year

so 16 units would have been lost...
UNLV- 6 units next year
Colo St 2 units next year
NM 5 units next year
would have kept only 13 units.

by comparison- Memphis only has 8 units next year and Houston has 1.

Interesting point. I had forgotten about the credits the MW was getting from schools that had already left like BYU and Utah. If your numbers are right you would be better off rolling CUSA into the MW and losing the Memphis credits.

(03-31-2013 11:22 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 08:46 PM)Fireman451 Wrote:  Doesn't really matter. The Big Metro = CUSA = Sun Belt.

They're all pretty much the same in most people's mind, they all are fighting for the crumbs, none of them really matter in the big scheme of things in regards to major college sports.

I notice you left out the MAC. I don't suppose Central Michigan's football win over Iowa back in September had anything to do with that...

Booooooooooooooo!

(03-31-2013 11:22 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  I notice you left out the MAC. I don't suppose Central Michigan's football win over Iowa back in September had anything to do with that...

The difference is not necessarily about whether the MAC is better or worse on the field of play ...

... the difference is that the MAC is stable enough that it doesn't blur together with the Big TBA, CUSA and Sunbelt among those who know that the conferences exist but don't keep up with the ins and outs of every realignment move.

(04-01-2013 12:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 08:19 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 08:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 01:39 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 10:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  They only had to dissolve one conference. Plus, they could have negotiated a deal with the exiting schools. They could have negotiated a 50-50 deal with Memphis. That would have allowed CUSA to keep half of the Memphis NCAA credits.

The check is made out to the conference: its officially a conference champions tournament with additional invited at-large schools, and all of the schools "earn" the units appearing as a representative of their conference.

What the NCAA told CUSA and MWC was that future NCAA units owed to the conference that was dissolved would cease to be owed, and the total pool of units would just be that much smaller when the appearance money was next distributed.
The reason that the deal between the residual schools of the Old Big East and the C7 schools could involve the C7 schools taking "their" units was that the Old Big East formally still exists, just with a new name to be announced later ... the Big TBA. Satisfying the deal will involve the Big TBA forward the units corresponding to C7 appearances, until the Marquette appearance money for this year's tournament stops arriving in six year's time.

Thats false. The pool of units does not shrink. If a conference dissloves, the units are no longer conference property. At that point they follow the team that earned them. If CUSA dissolved, Memphis would get those credits--they dont just dissappear.

The C-7 isnt really keeping thier units. The existing C-TBA will still receive those units because C-TBA still exists. However, the C-7 had a "pre-nup" agreement signed back n 2005 that allows the basketball schoolr (or the football schools) to intitiate a "split" of the conference assets if they left as a group. The C-7 exercised this right. The C-7 gets to keep thier credits due to this agreement. The NCAA has nothing to do with it. Effectively, the C-TBA will recieve a check from the NCAA fro the C-7 credits. Then, C-TBA will write a check to the C-7 for the value of the C-7 credits in order to comply with the conditions of the "pre nup" split agreement.

So, the reality is, any school leaving the dissolved conference would have recieved its NCAA credits. Since the vast majority of the credits resided in the MW, it would have been best to dissolve the MW. Then those credits would follow the schools to C-USA. By not dissolving C-USA, C-USA would have been able to keep the credits from Memphis and Houston. Since all the MW schools with credits (other than SDSU) would be joining CUSA, thier credits could also be added to the C-USA confernece pot. The only credits that would have been lost are the SDSU credits (since they were going to C-TBA).

actually this is false...
San Diego St like you mentioned 7 units next year
BYU 7 units next year from MWC
Utah 1 unit next year from MWC
and now Boise this year 1 unit next year

so 16 units would have been lost...
UNLV- 6 units next year
Colo St 2 units next year
NM 5 units next year
would have kept only 13 units.

by comparison- Memphis only has 8 units next year and Houston has 1.

Interesting point. I had forgotten about the credits the MW was getting from schools that had already left like BYU and Utah. If your numbers are right you would be better off rolling CUSA into the MW and losing the Memphis credits.

The problem with that- you had more teams leaving CUSA so the exit fee's they would have lost.

(03-30-2013 07:13 PM)billings Wrote:  really surprised they did not try to hold at around a constant 12. Sure glad the MWC did not overreact and invite a bunch of FCS schools with the new pay for performance rules coming into play

These kinds of statements really do need a challenge. There is a fundamental difference between what the MWC faced and what CUSA faced.

MWC was poised to lose 2 teams; Boise State and SDSU. There was considerable speculation on a variety of scenarios where they might lose more, but nothing was really on the drawing board. They didn't have to act to stay solvent. They could have stayed at 10 and been just fine.

CUSA lost Houston, SMU, Memphis, Tulane, ECU, UCF. That put us at 6 members, which was completely unsustainable. Action was required to add 4 to at least bring us to 10, and 6 to get us back to 12. If you want to argue that we should not have gone to 14, I'll accept that.

Comparing the MWC scenario to CUSA's is a true apples to oranges comparison. CUSA HAD to act with at least 4, and in reality 6, to stay even with the game.

As long as CUSA was the big poaching ground, what else was feasibly possible? Nothing really. I think we're in good shape, and I wish these facile, but meaningless, comparisons would stop. i think Banowsky's done a pretty damn good job, given what he faced.

(04-01-2013 08:24 AM)Cnelson203 Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 07:13 PM)billings Wrote:  really surprised they did not try to hold at around a constant 12. Sure glad the MWC did not overreact and invite a bunch of FCS schools with the new pay for performance rules coming into play

These kinds of statements really do need a challenge. There is a fundamental difference between what the MWC faced and what CUSA faced.

MWC was poised to lose 2 teams; Boise State and SDSU. There was considerable speculation on a variety of scenarios where they might lose more, but nothing was really on the drawing board. They didn't have to act to stay solvent. They could have stayed at 10 and been just fine.

CUSA lost Houston, SMU, Memphis, Tulane, ECU, UCF. That put us at 6 members, which was completely unsustainable. Action was required to add 4 to at least bring us to 10, and 6 to get us back to 12. If you want to argue that we should not have gone to 14, I'll accept that.

Comparing the MWC scenario to CUSA's is a true apples to oranges comparison. CUSA HAD to act with at least 4, and in reality 6, to stay even with the game.

As long as CUSA was the big poaching ground, what else was feasibly possible? Nothing really. I think we're in good shape, and I wish these facile, but meaningless, comparisons would stop. i think Banowsky's done a pretty damn good job, given what he faced.

CUSA lost only 4 in 2011-12 season(UCF, Memphis, Houston, and SMU). They went and added 6 then when they had to add only 2 and at most 4 to stay even.

(04-01-2013 08:24 AM)Cnelson203 Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 07:13 PM)billings Wrote:  really surprised they did not try to hold at around a constant 12. Sure glad the MWC did not overreact and invite a bunch of FCS schools with the new pay for performance rules coming into play

These kinds of statements really do need a challenge. There is a fundamental difference between what the MWC faced and what CUSA faced.

MWC was poised to lose 2 teams; Boise State and SDSU. There was considerable speculation on a variety of scenarios where they might lose more, but nothing was really on the drawing board. They didn't have to act to stay solvent. They could have stayed at 10 and been just fine.

CUSA lost Houston, SMU, Memphis, Tulane, ECU, UCF. That put us at 6 members, which was completely unsustainable. Action was required to add 4 to at least bring us to 10, and 6 to get us back to 12. If you want to argue that we should not have gone to 14, I'll accept that.

Comparing the MWC scenario to CUSA's is a true apples to oranges comparison. CUSA HAD to act with at least 4, and in reality 6, to stay even with the game.

As long as CUSA was the big poaching ground, what else was feasibly possible? Nothing really. I think we're in good shape, and I wish these facile, but meaningless, comparisons would stop. i think Banowsky's done a pretty damn good job, given what he faced.

CUSA lost 4 at first and quickly added 6. They could have added 2 and been ok. I suspect they would not have added Charlotte and ODU if they knew ECU was leaving. They could have just added FIU and either UNT or La Tech and then waited (I see Steve wrote pretty much the same thing just before I posted this).

(04-01-2013 08:37 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 08:24 AM)Cnelson203 Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 07:13 PM)billings Wrote:  really surprised they did not try to hold at around a constant 12. Sure glad the MWC did not overreact and invite a bunch of FCS schools with the new pay for performance rules coming into play

These kinds of statements really do need a challenge. There is a fundamental difference between what the MWC faced and what CUSA faced.

MWC was poised to lose 2 teams; Boise State and SDSU. There was considerable speculation on a variety of scenarios where they might lose more, but nothing was really on the drawing board. They didn't have to act to stay solvent. They could have stayed at 10 and been just fine.

CUSA lost Houston, SMU, Memphis, Tulane, ECU, UCF. That put us at 6 members, which was completely unsustainable. Action was required to add 4 to at least bring us to 10, and 6 to get us back to 12. If you want to argue that we should not have gone to 14, I'll accept that.

Comparing the MWC scenario to CUSA's is a true apples to oranges comparison. CUSA HAD to act with at least 4, and in reality 6, to stay even with the game.

As long as CUSA was the big poaching ground, what else was feasibly possible? Nothing really. I think we're in good shape, and I wish these facile, but meaningless, comparisons would stop. i think Banowsky's done a pretty damn good job, given what he faced.

CUSA lost 4 at first and quickly added 6. They could have added 2 and been ok. I suspect they would not have added Charlotte and ODU if they knew ECU was leaving... .

Those schools were pushed by Marshall. ECU wanted ODU; but they would have been added anyway.