(05-13-2013 10:55 AM)BruceMcF Wrote: (05-12-2013 12:07 PM)_sturt_ Wrote: Here's the thing: while the crates (conferences) containing the packages (schools) into which the product (talent) is being poured have changed, there is no reason to suspect any change in the amount or quality of talent.
Here is the thing. A fundamental false assumption which contradicts the above.
Yes, conferences are crates. They are structures created by schools for their mutual benefit.
Missing your point, but think you might be missing mine as well...
All that I meant to point out here is that there is no change in the stream of talent, and therefore, while we might envision Charlotte as the next UCF, we have to remember that UCF didn't exactly experience a meteoric rise... and it should be expected that Charlotte will, for the foreseeable future, be mostly competing for talent with other CUSA schools, as well as the MAC.
(05-13-2013 10:55 AM)BruceMcF Wrote: Quote: Here's the second thing: Nothing is ever permanent. Once established, if one conference or the other begins to have advantage perennially, then you simply have language in the agreement that allows one or the other to dissolve the alliance at that point.
So what an "advantage to a conference" means is an advantage to the schools that make up the conference.
And you have replaced your prior proposal, which ran up into the twin problems of not offering enough benefit to all participants to justify the costs, and of not being in compliance with NCAA regulations, with a new proposal, which works against the interest of a majority of the schools in both Conference USA and the MAC.
Now, the proposal itself is not compelling enough to attract the interest of a network, so without anybody with a financial interest in being the moneybags for the move, its not going to happen.
First, let me compliment you that you took the time to digest much of what I proposed, and can see how some of your own insight/criticism led me to this new... and I'd say improved... direction.
But you bring up TV and I think you must be assuming that I'm assuming that TV would work appreciably different than it does now... but I'm not.
Why not?
Because in terms of actual games on the schedule, practically nothing is changing in this context... the same CUSA teams are pretty much playing the same CUSA teams, same MAC teams playing the same MAC teams... with the lone but important caveat that for three Saturdays at the end of every season, there is an 8-team playoff occurring between the upper crust CUSA and MAC teams.
In point of fact, CUSA and MAC could still negotiate their own TV contracts independent of each other; this new conference being just a new boundary around what is, otherwise, CUSA and MAC teams.
But that's a decision that I think is best left open... it's conceivable that the two could benefit from cooperating on that front as well.
(05-13-2013 10:55 AM)BruceMcF Wrote: But if there was a risk of it happening, a super-majority of both the MAC and Conference USA would have it in their interests to do whatever is necessary to change the rules of their respective conferences to make it impossible. As a self-defense mechanism.
Especially Conference USA: Conference USA has suffered two drops in quality, as a result of factors outside of their control. Now you are proposing that the bulk of Conference USA accept a self-imposed drop in quality.
Why would they vote to do that to themselves?
Good question.
The answer is this: This new conference is fundamentally a joint-venture, with two conferences being invested and counting on gaining from its success.
Being from Huntington originally, I think conceptually of Ashland Oil and Marathon Oil... two neighbors and competitors... who eventually saw opportunity to compete against the bigger heavyweights in the industry by forging some cooperative ventures that reallocated resources on both sides for the purpose of, of course, growing profits. I don't know their current status, but at one time, when Speedway profited, both Marathon and Ashland stood to profit.
That's just one example of many such joint-ventures.
And as I've just asserted above... a by-product of all of this is that the lower 75% are afforded a better opportunity to create some positive momentum in their programs, and better opportunity to win a championship.
So, in truth, it's a net positive.
There are two areas where I think there's some deserved criticism, though... and I'll just say this because balance is important...
These 8 teams would not only constitute a football conference, but would also have to play basketball and other sports against each other as well. Olympic sports aren't as big of a deal because you only have to have five contests total as a conference to be legal. But in basketball, you have to have a minimum of 14 conference games. It's workable, but I'll admit, it's not ideal. Probably what you'd want to do is have the MAC-related teams play their former division-mate 4 times, the other two former conference-mates 3 times (thus, 10 total games versus other former MAC schools), and once against each of the four CUSA-related teams... and vice-versa for CUSA-related teams... allowing for travel concerns to be minimized, though that's a decidedly bigger help to MAC than to CUSA, of course. Still... using that format, there's only actually two MAC vs. CUSA away games for any given school to be added to the equation... no big deal.
The bigger deal is that these teams are going to want to play their former conference mates, and that's going to eat into their non-conference agenda to some greater degree... and yet, there's even an upside counter to that... ie, that schools have more control over who, from their former conference, they want to play... NIU might just as soon avoid playing Buffalo, for instance, and in this circumstance, they don't have to.
The second is one that is already being debated on both CUSA and MAC boards as it is... ie, the prospect of taking on two more "mouths to feed" that would be CUSA-related, and three more that would be MAC-related. If you don't like adding teams to get to 16, then you're not likely to much like this proposal either since it essentially does that.
But in response to both of those negatives... I'm suggesting that adding 5 teams to the two conferences, and gaining a third champion in football and basketball as a result of creating an additional 8-team conference along with the two 12-team conferences is, again, a net positive.