Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
Author Message
Bull_In_Exile Offline
Eternal Pessimist
*

Posts: 21,809
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 461
I Root For: The Underdog
Location:
Post: #21
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(05-12-2013 12:22 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  
(05-12-2013 10:30 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Needs to be said on every board where you are posting this..

Oh, great.

Another nanny who makes it his business to dictate what threads anyone should read.

Who's the nanny? If I see something stupid I say it's stupid. Are you telling me I can only do that on the MAC board?

Quote:Do you really have nothing better to do with your life than to click on threads that you actually don't have any interest in?

Coming from someone with nothing better to do than post the exact same inane idea on at least three different forums.
05-12-2013 10:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #22
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(05-12-2013 10:56 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  
(05-12-2013 12:22 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  
(05-12-2013 10:30 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Needs to be said on every board where you are posting this..

Oh, great.

Another nanny who makes it his business to dictate what threads anyone should read.

Who's the nanny? If I see something stupid I say it's stupid. Are you telling me I can only do that on the MAC board?

Quote:Do you really have nothing better to do with your life than to click on threads that you actually don't have any interest in?

Coming from someone with nothing better to do than post the exact same inane idea on at least three different forums.


Coming from someone with nothing better to do than FOLLOW a person around to post the exact same response on more than one forum... (gosh you made that one too easy).

For the record, this was NOT the "exact same" idea. The new conference is central to this idea... it was not conceived in that way previously.

And for the record, there was only CUSA and MAC forums... oddly enough the same forums' fans who would be affected... who knew.

(Did you have anything of substance to say? I'd sure rather respond to that than this silliness.)
(This post was last modified: 05-13-2013 12:05 AM by _sturt_.)
05-13-2013 12:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #23
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
_sturt_, BIE, let's settle down now...
05-13-2013 08:26 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #24
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(05-12-2013 10:40 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  Just like Bull in Exile, I'll copy my response from the MAC board to here:

Why would we want to do this at all? C-USA 3 is the worst of C-USA 2 (though there are some good schools), WAC refugees, FCS callups, and mediocre Sun Belt schools, while the MAC has already shown that we can pull our own weight and put teams in the BCS. We're due to pass them up as far as money goes in our next round of negotiations, there's nothing I see here.

L/H, the numbers suggest that the MAC has an ever-so-slight edge on CUSA, but as Maclid suggested, the long-term prognosis for CUSA is decidedly better demographically-speaking. Your good friend Jim Delaney (Big 10 commish) has spoken publicly about his biggest concerns 20 years out being that the migration of the US population southward will slowly but surely eat away at Big Ten popularity... MAC would naturally have that same concern, of course. But MAC would, in a sense, be taking a step here to do something about that.
05-13-2013 08:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_In_Exile Offline
Eternal Pessimist
*

Posts: 21,809
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 461
I Root For: The Underdog
Location:
Post: #25
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(05-13-2013 12:03 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Coming from someone with nothing better to do than FOLLOW a person around to post the exact same response on more than one forum... (gosh you made that one too easy).

Ummm I post in the MAC boards and on the CRR... Did I post anywhere else that you put this up... Hmmmmmm..

Quote:For the record, this was NOT the "exact same" idea. The new conference is central to this idea... it was not conceived in that way previously.

For good reason! You would be essentially screwing over 75% of the teams in the MAC and CUSA, putting them in even more of a sub division than they already operate in.

If you can't make a simple game between CC's from the MWC and CUSA work (two conferences with *a lot* of geographical overlap why in the world would this monstrosity work?

The MAC
05-13-2013 10:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,098
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #26
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(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.

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.

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?
05-13-2013 10:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #27
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(05-13-2013 10:43 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  You would be essentially screwing over 75% of the teams in the MAC and CUSA, putting them in even more of a sub division than they already operate in.

No sarcasm... thanks for responding with something substantive this time that I can, in turn, respond to...

What you've called "screwing over," I would call the exact opposite... this is, rather, an opportunity for that 75% to do somewhat better than they otherwise would have, and moreover, to have that much better a shot at winning a MAC or CUSA championship.

Point in fact, many Marshall fans are disappointed to lose ECU and UCF, but concurrently excited by the prospect that they might be able to have that much better of an opportunity to finally win a division, if not a conference championship.
05-13-2013 05:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #28
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(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.
(This post was last modified: 05-13-2013 06:34 PM by _sturt_.)
05-13-2013 06:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bull_In_Exile Offline
Eternal Pessimist
*

Posts: 21,809
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation: 461
I Root For: The Underdog
Location:
Post: #29
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(05-13-2013 05:34 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  
(05-13-2013 10:43 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  You would be essentially screwing over 75% of the teams in the MAC and CUSA, putting them in even more of a sub division than they already operate in.

No sarcasm... thanks for responding with something substantive this time that I can, in turn, respond to...

What you've called "screwing over," I would call the exact opposite... this is, rather, an opportunity for that 75% to do somewhat better than they otherwise would have, and moreover, to have that much better a shot at winning a MAC or CUSA championship.

Point in fact, many Marshall fans are disappointed to lose ECU and UCF, but concurrently excited by the prospect that they might be able to have that much better of an opportunity to finally win a division, if not a conference championship.

Last years kent squad would not have been in your uber division.....
05-14-2013 09:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #30
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
Who said?

I didn't make any assertions about how the initial 8 teams would be determined.

Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't.

But look, we all ought to be able to acknowledge that there is no system/structure that is perfect. Not the one I'm proposing, and not the one that is the current status-quo. And... while what's good for the whole is good, what's good for the whole isn't always good for every single individual. You put up with some of that, though, to the extent that there's a net positive.

I'm only maintaining that this is a net positive... it represents an overall improvement for the 32 schools as a group in light of the new environment in which they find themselves competing.

Back to Kent... now think about this... even if one assumes they're in the regular MAC, they'd have been well-positioned to win the MAC championship... and... no less likely... none... to play in the GoDaddy Bowl... just as they, matter of fact, did (... or if not GoDaddy, a bowl of approximately equal regard).
(This post was last modified: 05-14-2013 09:52 AM by _sturt_.)
05-14-2013 09:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #31
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
If you liked it before, you're gonna love it now... hehe...

The "new conference" now has a name and a logo (... yeah, I had a little time to myself today.)

[Image: 8742045072_0e53808cc8_n.jpg]

I'm sure if you weren't convinced before, you're in the boat now, eh? 03-wink
05-15-2013 12:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
utpotts Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,969
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Toledo
Location: Canal Winchester, OH
Post: #32
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
Terrible
05-15-2013 03:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,979
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 182
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #33
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(05-12-2013 12:22 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  
(05-12-2013 10:30 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Needs to be said on every board where you are posting this..

Oh, great.

Another nanny who makes it his business to dictate what threads anyone should read.

Do you really have nothing better to do with your life than to click on threads that you actually don't have any interest in?

Sad and strange at the same time.


I've never read a thread of yours before, so this comes with no prejudice:

Your thread is idiotic. You sound like an idiot. You also sound like a douchebag.

Yes, you have a right to post what you want (unless a mod stops you). But the first ammendment doesn't protect you from what people say back to you. You are entitled to your opinion, but we are equally entitled to call you an idiot.
(This post was last modified: 05-15-2013 04:07 PM by Gamecock.)
05-15-2013 04:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #34
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
I've never seen you on a board before, so this too comes with no prejudice.

Name-calling for the sake of insult is a bigger reflection on the person bothering to engage in it than it is on their intended target. I've seen it that way since... oh... probably about the end of middle school.

Sure I could say you sound like a douchebag, or an idiot... but what's the point? To make you feel bad? To stroke my own ego as-if I can claim I'm better than you? Seems to me a little juvenile.

For the record, I never asked to be protected from what anyone says back to me, nor would I ever do that. On the other hand, I think it's within the boundaries of what is appropriate to call out a stalker or a nanny, and ask him/her to contribute something more than "this sucks."

Concurrently, I would never ask to be protected from reading what a poster posts... I wouldn't want to be considered whiny like that, or somehow unable to control myself from clicking on threads that don't actually interest me.

Moreover, I would never stick out my chest and attempt to police someone as to whether the thread he/she began is worthy... play the nanny role. The nature of this or any board is that posts that are worthy get discussed, and those that are not, don't, and fall off the page. Why anyone needs the self-gratification to pretend their job is to act as the post nanny is beyond me.

Having said all of that... I don't mind substantive criticism whatsoever... I say, please, be my guest and have at it... troubleshooting an idea is a net positive, and appreciated.
(This post was last modified: 05-15-2013 05:58 PM by _sturt_.)
05-15-2013 04:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
PirateTreasureNC Offline
G's up, Ho's Down ; )
*

Posts: 36,249
Joined: May 2004
Reputation: 617
I Root For: ECU Pirates,
Location:
Post: #35
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(05-15-2013 12:25 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  If you liked it before, you're gonna love it now... hehe...

The "new conference" now has a name and a logo (... yeah, I had a little time to myself today.)

[Image: 8742045072_0e53808cc8_n.jpg]

I'm sure if you weren't convinced before, you're in the boat now, eh? 03-wink

This epic piece of fail is the first post on here I would give a -3 Rep to if I could.

1) CUSA and MAC cover more than 8 states

2) Each has more than 8 members in by themselves.
(This post was last modified: 05-15-2013 06:38 PM by PirateTreasureNC.)
05-15-2013 06:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gamecock Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,979
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 182
I Root For: South Carolina
Location:
Post: #36
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(05-15-2013 04:56 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  I've never seen you on a board before, so this too comes with no prejudice.

Name-calling for the sake of insult is a bigger reflection on the person bothering to engage in it than it is on their intended target. I've seen it that way since... oh... probably about the end of middle school.

Sure I could say you sound like a douchebag, or an idiot... but what's the point? To make you feel bad? To stroke my own ego as-if I can claim I'm better than you? Seems to me a little juvenile.

For the record, I never asked to be protected from what anyone says back to me, nor would I ever do that. On the other hand, I think it's within the boundaries of what is appropriate to call out a stalker or a nanny, and ask him/her to contribute something more than "this sucks."

Concurrently, I would never ask to be protected from reading what a poster posts... I wouldn't want to be considered whiny like that, or somehow unable to control myself from clicking on threads that don't actually interest me.

Moreover, I would never stick out my chest and attempt to police someone as to whether the thread he/she began is worthy... play the nanny role. The nature of this or any board is that posts that are worthy get discussed, and those that are not, don't, and fall off the page. Why anyone needs the self-gratification to pretend their job is to act as the post nanny is beyond me.

Having said all of that... I don't mind substantive criticism whatsoever... I say, please, be my guest and have at it... troubleshooting an idea is a net positive, and appreciated.



tl;dr
05-16-2013 12:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,098
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #37
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(05-15-2013 06:38 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  This epic piece of fail is the first post on here I would give a -3 Rep to if I could.

1) CUSA and MAC cover more than 8 states

2) Each has more than 8 members in by themselves.
Now _sturt_ is going to explain to you that his great idea is to have the top two schools in each division of each conference play in their own eight school conference ... then the bottom one of the two from each division drop down to the inferior MAC and CUSA left-behinds every year to be replaced by the division winners from the inferior conferences ... so the top conference will always have a constantly changing make-up of eight teams. The "Great Eight".

This is _sturt_'s new system, after his previous system did not get people enthusiastic. Its, obviously, even worse than his previous system, in terms of completely eliminating any chance of either the MAC or CUSA to build any brand value because they have deliberately, on purpose set up a competing conference to raid them of their most successful schools every single year, with the "perpetual raiding" conference, the "Raided Eight", dumping its trash on the MAC and CUSA.

Its like a system of promotion and relegation created by somebody who has never followed any teams in leagues that actually have promotion and relegation, and who doesn't "get" the fact that its not the teams that constantly circulate between a European or Latin American First and Second Division who build up the broader support for the support, but rather the clubs that are able to entrench a place in the top division.
05-16-2013 12:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wolfman Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,459
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 181
I Root For: The Cartel
Location: Raleigh, NC
Post: #38
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
Hybrid conferences don't work. See Big East.

If 2 or 3 schools could pull their football programs and form a football only conference Alabama, LSU, Texas, etc. would have done it already. Even if the rules allowed it, if there is not enough incentive for those schools there is not enough incentive for the CUSA/MAC schools. By incentive I mean money.

Your tournament is adding 2 or 3 games to the schedule. If a school wasn't good enough for a major bowl how is adding 2 or 3 games going to help? You are also risking losing a major bowl. If Northern Illinois had played those 3 games and lost one they would not have gone to the Orange Bowl. 12 regular season games is more than enough to determine bowl worthiness.

If you want to spark interest, win a lot and beat some big name teams (i.e. the Boise State model).
05-16-2013 08:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #39
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(05-16-2013 12:28 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(05-15-2013 06:38 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  This epic piece of fail is the first post on here I would give a -3 Rep to if I could.

1) CUSA and MAC cover more than 8 states

2) Each has more than 8 members in by themselves.
Now _sturt_ is going to explain to you that his great idea is to (a) have the top two schools in each division of each conference play in their own eight school conference ... then the bottom one of the two from each division drop down to the inferior MAC and CUSA left-behinds every year to be replaced by the division winners from the inferior conferences ... so the top conference will always have a constantly changing make-up of eight teams. The "Great Eight".

(b) This is _sturt_'s new system, after his previous system did not get people enthusiastic. Its, obviously, even worse than his previous system, in terms of completely eliminating any chance of either the MAC or CUSA to build any brand value because they have deliberately, on purpose set up a competing conference to raid them of their most successful schools every single year, with the "perpetual raiding" conference, the "Raided Eight", dumping its trash on the MAC and CUSA.

Its like a system of promotion and relegation created by somebody who has never followed any teams in leagues that actually have promotion and relegation, and who doesn't "get" the fact that its not the teams that (b) constantly circulate between a European or Latin American First and Second Division who build up the broader support for the support, but rather the clubs that are able to entrench a place in the top division.


(a) Close, but that has been tweaked somewhat from the original, in order to deal with that 2-year/6-team conundrum you were so kind to raise to my attention... http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=632...pid9321417

(b) Ummm... Bruce... lol... you mistake me for someone who comes to a forum looking for people to be enthusiastic about an idea.

You've been so good recently at reading most of my posts... which, is nice... I appreciate that much enthusiasm, anyhow... but you evidently missed this one, so I've copied and pasted...

Quote:My guess is that you're no novice to message boards anymore than I am. If so, you should know like anyone else that when ideas like this are floated, it's rarely EVER welcomed... that's because these boards are full of people who are (a) conservative and wary of change, and (b) like to argue... *raises hand*... and so it's just not all that natural for anyone to jump in and say, "Yeah! Let's do THAT."

So, it's not all as disappointing as people like fanatehc wish it would be for me to find that most... not all, but most... responses are going to tend negative, if not blatantly so.


But that's okay. I see value in people like Bruce, or at least see value in their looking for holes... which then allows me to see if there's any merit in tweeking things to improve the idea.

Shout me down all you want, but I think I'm onto something here. Or, given everyone's help, whether intended as "help" or not, I should say... we are onto something here.

(b) As stated, I appreciate that you've been attempting to shoot holes in the concept. Troubleshooting is good. Your challenges force me to re-look at my rationales and to investigate things a little deeper.

So... while I know you don't mean it in a good way... nonetheless, thank you for taking it seriously enough to take the time.

Now, about your presentation of pro-reg as an unsuccessful concept, and yourself as an expert on pro-reg around the world... I have to admit, soccer has never been my thing in the least... more boring than bowling... more boring even than baseball with designated hitters (!)... so, I had to do some googling.

What I've found is that pro-reg does have its critics...

BUT interestingly, it's not the concept that the critics talk about, but how they perceive the execution needs some tweaking to do an even better job of keeping the best playing the best...

Here's a quick (relatively, anyhow) review of the top three search returns, two of which are from soccer writers, and the third is actually an academic paper portending to look at patterns of promotion and relegation in all of the European Leagues...

http://www.persports.com/Soccer_relegation_proposal.php

Quote:European Soccer has a rather unique Relegation & Promotion Structure that is very different from all North American professional sports leagues. In the European Soccer tradition teams that finish at the bottom of their respective leagues are relegated to the next lower division with their spots assumed by teams from that lower division with the best performance.

The rationale for this is very compelling. First, poor performers are penalized while top performers are rewarded. Second, and just as important, the moral hazard associated with teams intentionally losing games towards the end of the season in order to get a better Draft position (something observed in many North American sports leagues ) is removed. However, despite these benefits are there some drawbacks to this system....

[chart]

....The analysis reveals a number of interesting results....


...The relegation carousel within the English Premier League therefore seems like a revolving door where the same teams, by and large, are being promoted and then subsequently relegated the next season. Under that scenario the Premier League may be best served by adjusting the promotion and relegation structure so that the best teams get the opportunity to stay in one of the top leagues in the World.

Here is a proposal that could help.

There should just be one automatic promotion spot (that for the winners of the lower division). Correspondingly, the last place team in the Premiership should be automatically relegated...


...The Relegation & Promotion Structure within European Soccer is a very unique system with many benefits. However, it needs to be strengthened to ensure that only the very best teams get to play at the highest level, and not promote substandard teams that cannot effectively compete at that higher level.

(Interestingly, that idea of "one automatic promotion spot" happens to be part of this Great 8 concept... feeling pretty good about that one.)

And here's one speaking to the prospect of pro-reg being used here in the US' MLS...

http://www.soccernewsday.com/usa/a/317/r...ion-debate

Quote:Resolving the Promotion-Relegation Debate
It won't be today but here is how Promotion and Relegation can happen in North America
by Mike Firpo | Friday, December 07, 2012

....Let’s chat Promotion and Relegation!

No, we aren’t going to get all frothy, conspiratorial and repetitive about it, but let’s begin with the part that eludes some … reality.

Pro-Reality in the Short-Term

Logic dictates and MLS Commissioner Don Garber has stated ad nauseam publicly (so much so it is now an obligatory Q&A) that he and MLS owners like the idea of club promotion and relegation and the excitement and differentiation it could make for MLS versus other North American sports, BUT (and it really is in capitals) now is not the time and may be better for the long-term....

It really is just too early to implement. Just like you can’t put a 11-year-old Manny Pacquiao in the ring with even a decent pro boxer – it’s too early, he won’t be able to hang. Give him some time though, let him mature and then you have a chance. MLS needs that time to mature.

The fanbase in support of Pro-Rel needs time to grow too. As far as numbers there needs to be unstoppable momentum led by desirous masses. You know the movement still is just not strong enough yet when many of you in the soccer community know the person who is restlessly leading the existing campaign, by his first name. That is not a good sign.

I am not arguing against Pro-Rel. I am in fact a firm believer that it works in most leagues around the world and certainly helps create more interest and excitement, especially at the bottom of the league and at the end of the season. It is special in sports and is cherished by some who think its introduction will be the game-changer for MLS or soccer in North America...

So, to this soccer columnist, it's not at all the concept itself... not at all... in fact, his comments essentially assert that, contrary to your concern, the 24 teams in MAC and CUSA (the non-Great-8) would see increased "interest and excitement"... but, rather it is a matter of stability (by that, I think he means that the teams themselves are on good financial footing and not at-risk of going bankrupt) and a matter of fans just getting educated about it and understanding it.

And finally, here are some highlights of that academic article...

https://dipot.ulb.ac.be/dspace/bitstream...09-038.pdf
Quote:
Szymanski and Valetti (2005) further show that promotion and relegation system enhances sportive effort incentives (avoiding relegation strongly exacerbates the competition between bottom teams)...

...Noll (2002) documents well the concentration of top teams in English Premier League, giving the intuition that elite teams are more likely to stay in the elite the season after. However, a wide range of statistics remains unused in the study of promotion and relegation... The main issue in soccer-related studies is the lack of homogeneous data on football clubs. Studying promotion and relegation requires data for each club involved in the first or second division for each league and for each season. It includes 259 distinct European football clubs: 55 in England, 47 in France, 48 in Germany, 55 in Italy and 54 in Spain. However, due to a lack of data availability, financial variables like total sales, players’ wages or revenues from transfers cannot be used here: some reports like the yearly Deloitte Football Money League or the Forbes Most Valuable Soccer Teams5 provide detailed financial data on top European soccer teams. However, to our knowledge, there is no such database or data source for alle the European clubs in the two first divisions in Europe - it is by the way surprising that the Deloitte and Forbes data are so little used in the literature6-. It is obvious that financial data would have a strong impact on the sportive results of the clubs: a rich club can hire good players and consequently makes its relegation probability lower and promotion probability higher. But working on a large group of clubs, as it is needed for our study, unfortunately implied to do without such a variable....

Concerning the relegation from the first division (see Table 2), the regional context plays a highly significant role: it appears that the more the percentage of services in the total
8
employment and also the more the percentage of educated regional people, the less the relegation probability. Noticing that almost all the best football clubs in Europe are located in industrial cities (Manchester or Milan for example), Kuper and Szymanski (2009) describe the role of the industrial revolution in the location of soccer clubs in Europe: at this period, soccer was a way for newcomers in industrial towns to socialize. We interpret the significant negative impact of the industry variable on relegation by the decline of industries in Europe in relation with the globalization, this would explain the decline in the elite of clubs from industrial regions, for example Strasbourg and Birmingham in our sample, compared to clubs of services areas.
It sounds obvious that the seniority in the first division and the qualification in European Cup decrease significantly the relegation probability. Indeed, clubs in first division have had access to first division broadcastings rights for several years, important matchday revenues and had the time to build high level teams. Moreover, clubs qualified in European Competition must have had very good players the former season to qualify. The stadium capacity variable, even if less significant, goes in the same way: this can be interpreted by the fact that having a big stadium allows you to receive important matchday revenues and in some cases stadium naming revenues11. It can also ease access to credit. Actually, these variables are the illustration of elite reproduction and fully validate the theoretical findings of Szymanski and Valetti (2005): incomes are little shared in the soccer elite and a hard core of a bit more than 10 clubs is durably set in each league. The process is self-reinforcing because belonging to the elite for years makes the club earn more money and allows hiring good players, what diminishes the relegation probability...

So, in other words, to the degree that teams in the upper league have access and/or acquire greater financial resources, the more likely it is that they will remain.

That's, of course, important to note. It has implications to how financial matters related to this proposal would be settled. This would tend to suggest that my earlier assumption that the Great 8 should receive a higher pay-out in TV and bowl revenues is probably not a good idea after all. It seems smarter to continue equality of distribution within MAC and/or within CUSA, regardless of a given team's status in a given year in Great 8 or in the regular conference structures.

But of importance to Bruce's criticism, the gravity of this study is that it is not the system of competition that is a concern, but rather that revenue distribution matters to the desired healthy oscillation effect.
(This post was last modified: 05-16-2013 09:44 AM by _sturt_.)
05-16-2013 08:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_sturt_ Offline
Irritant-in-Chief to the Whiny 5% (hehe)
*

Posts: 1,550
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation: 32
I Root For: competence
Location: Bloom County
Post: #40
RE: New CUSA/MAC Alliance Proposal Yields *3* Champions
(05-16-2013 08:50 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  Hybrid conferences don't work. See Big East.

If 2 or 3 schools could pull their football programs and form a football only conference Alabama, LSU, Texas, etc. would have done it already. Even if the rules allowed it, if there is not enough incentive for those schools there is not enough incentive for the CUSA/MAC schools. By incentive I mean money.

Your tournament is adding 2 or 3 games to the schedule. If a school wasn't good enough for a major bowl how is adding 2 or 3 games going to help? You are also risking losing a major bowl. If Northern Illinois had played those 3 games and lost one they would not have gone to the Orange Bowl. 12 regular season games is more than enough to determine bowl worthiness.

If you want to spark interest, win a lot and beat some big name teams (i.e. the Boise State model).



Wolfman... first, can I assume you're not the W0lfman that I otherwise know from HerdFans?

Second, I'd comment, but I think... no insult intended... you're not actually commenting with good information on what is proposed. So, if you care to pursue this, read more of this thread so you better understand the parameters of what's being laid out. I am not, for instance, suggesting anything that's been tried before... by BE or anyone else... and I'm not suggesting any additional games.
05-16-2013 09:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.