(06-13-2015 06:48 PM)cltnjd Wrote:  I read cotton1991 & flat tire 2's posts about football independence (with regard to wvu). And here's the quote from the article:


BYU. A well-intentioned decision at the time to take football independent has largely backfired. While BYU gained exposure by making its own deal with ESPN, it got stuck in FBS no-man's-land when the CFP replaced the BCS. Whereas Mountain West champ Boise State made the Fiesta Bowl last year with two losses, BYU, not considered part of the Group of 5, needs to finish in the top 10 to have any chance at a major bowl. It's also missing out on lucrative CFP revenue. The MWC distributed $23.5 million to members this year; BYU split less than $1 million with Army and Navy.
The situation is dire enough that coach Bronco Mendenhall recently said joining a Power 5 league "has to happen within three [years]."


BYU seemed to have a nice plan with FBS independence 5 years ago. Their fans liked it, they scheduled well, and they seemed well positioned for high level bowls.

Then the rug got pulled out from under them. No expected CFP payday, at a serious disadvantage for an Access Bowl (can you imagine the uproar if all 5 G5 conferences got repeatedly shut out in favor of indy BYU?), and no more serious talk of P5 expansion. With rumors of the B12 possibly getting a championship game with only 10 members . . . I'm not certain BYU will get that needed P5 invite within 3 years. They may be sweating it out right now.

Why not extend an invitation?

The American & MWC already have a bit of history with BYU. I'm not sure BYU particularly wants to hear, "Well, well, well! Look who's come crawling back!" Plus, the AAC & MW would likely push hard for full membership & lucrative exit fees.

CUSA could offer football only, a CFP payday, and a better opportunity at an Access Bowl berth. Cusa also doesn't tend to burn any bridges with schools looking to move up. We don't need to discourage BYU from pursuing its eventual goal of P5. Their P5 goal would remain alive and well regardless if it's in CUSA or Indy.

BYU would offer a true strength of schedule boost for its members, a nice upgrade in programming content for cusa's big tv markets, and maybe even an extra bowl game.

Is it everything Conference USA wants? No. Is it everything BYU wants? No. But I think it would benefit both parties. If I'm the commish, I tell BYU to enjoy its independence, to keep pushing for its P5 invite, and to schedule ahead as if they'll have a P5 invite with a full slate of P5 conference opponents for 2018. Of course, if things don't work out, I might also plant a seed by saying that CUSA could arrange a full slate of conference opponents for 2018, too.

Thoughts? Has the summer heat made me delusional?

No the delusion was BYU thinking they would or even could be Notre Dame 2.0

(06-13-2015 11:19 AM)Flat Tire 2 Wrote:  Going independent was going to be the suicide course of action for wvu, it wouldn't work for them. In reality, landing in Big 12 was not a bad move for them. The ACC and the other eastern conferences had no interest them. If you were a wvu fan; would you rather have home games with UCF and Memphis or Texas and OU? That is a no brainer since the Big 12 had several teams in the polls. We at Marshall are also stuck in a conference with the same problem with distance as wvu, except we are not getting the same TV money.

The Who better hope and pray that Texas and Oklahoma stay happy for a long long time and don't take off to the PAC. If or when that happens I think the BIG10 or ACC would come in scoop up Kansas and maybe Oklahoma State or Iowa State. And the rest of the B12 or as it stands the B10 would be looking for homes.

No way could TCU, The Who, Kansas State, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State/Iowa State and Baylor add 2-4 members and keep their autobid. The B12 would go the way of the BE. I actually believe a combo of the PAC, ACC and B10 would probably also take Kansas State, Oklahoma State/Iowa State. That would leave 4 members looking for a home in Texas Tech, The Who, Baylor and TCU.

And the ACC as long as the triangle is there will never take The Who. They have been trying to get to the ACC since the mid 70s.

(06-13-2015 08:52 PM)HerdZoned Wrote:  

(06-13-2015 11:19 AM)Flat Tire 2 Wrote:  Going independent was going to be the suicide course of action for wvu, it wouldn't work for them. In reality, landing in Big 12 was not a bad move for them. The ACC and the other eastern conferences had no interest them. If you were a wvu fan; would you rather have home games with UCF and Memphis or Texas and OU? That is a no brainer since the Big 12 had several teams in the polls. We at Marshall are also stuck in a conference with the same problem with distance as wvu, except we are not getting the same TV money.

The Who better hope and pray that Texas and Oklahoma stay happy for a long long time and don't take off to the PAC. If or when that happens I think the BIG10 or ACC would come in scoop up Kansas and maybe Oklahoma State or Iowa State. And the rest of the B12 or as it stands the B10 would be looking for homes.

No way could TCU, The Who, Kansas State, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State/Iowa State and Baylor add 2-4 members and keep their autobid. The B12 would go the way of the BE. I actually believe a combo of the PAC, ACC and B10 would probably also take Kansas State, Oklahoma State/Iowa State. That would leave 4 members looking for a home in Texas Tech, The Who, Baylor and TCU.

And the ACC as long as the triangle is there will never take The Who. They have been trying to get to the ACC since the mid 70s.

If Texas and Oklahoma left, I think Kansas and Oklahoma State would get invited to other P5s. I don't think any of the others would. The left overs would simply add BYU, Memphis, Houston, and possibly Cincinnati. They would probably keep their tie to the college playoff, at least until the current contract runs out. After that I think they would probably lose their status. Just my opinion.

A lot of what ifs when it comes to the Big 12. Wake me when one of those ifs happens.

(06-13-2015 12:41 PM)Dawgxas Wrote:  

(06-13-2015 11:28 AM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(06-13-2015 09:08 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(06-12-2015 12:52 PM)ESE84 Wrote:  Could also make the argument that the 2012 WAC football programs that landed in the MWC (Utah State and San Jose State) and C-USA (UTSA) are winners.

Tech was certainly one of the biggest winners. We once played in a WAC where our nearest conference foe was NMSU.

Geographically it was good but the WAC was a stronger football conference...even the depleted WAC where we had three teams get ranked in the top 25 at one point or another in the 2012 season.

There were some good teams in the WAC. 6th ranked Boise playing in Ruston. Ranked Fresno State under Mark Hill getting beat in Ruston and the goal post coming down. Colin Kapernick (Nevada) literally running from sideline to the other in the same play and scoring. Hawaii's run under June Jones. Then the emergence of Utah State and San Jose State in the latter years of the WAC. After 2005 CUSA wasn't as strong in football as the WAC. But the CUSA hoops is better, more regional rivals and better geographical fit

... better TV contract, more money, and more bowl games too. I think it was a win for Tech.

(06-13-2015 03:25 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  To try and list which programs were winners and losers would take too long. I think it is easier and more logical to list each conference and realignments impact on them...

Winners
PAC 12- making more money and has played for the national title
SEC- making more money and won national titles
BIG 10- making more money and won first playoff championship
AAC- making more money and won national titles

Set back by realignmet
BIG 12- lost key members (Nebraska, Texas A&M, Missouri, and Colorado) and left out of the playoff
MWC- lost key members (TCU, Utah, and BYU), and now have an unsustainable revenue sharing system, but did manage to earn the access bowl spot, but if programs begin to defect over revenue sharing disputes, I would lower them into the "Loser" category
C-USA- lost some key members (ECU, Houston, Memphis, SMU, Tulane, UCF, and Tulsa), though the new line-up has out preformed expectations since realignment, but if the new media deal is a disappointment I would lower them into the "Loser" category

Unaffected by realignment
MAC- stable and unchanged, no better, but not any worse

Losers
AAC- lost their most important members (Rutgers, West Virginia, Louisville, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse), lost their seat at the big boys' table, and even their name
Sun Belt- lost members (MTSU, WKU, North Texas, FIU, FAU, and they lost UTSA before they ever got to play a down in the conference), their conference has been completely shut out of Florida, and have had to patch together the Belt with WAC refugees and FCS programs
BYU and Army- Independents don't really see playoff money


Biggest Loser
The WAC- They got wacked

We never had UTSA to begin with. They were interested but there was a certain Texas School in the league at the time that would not support their membership.

I'm not entirely sure I'd call us a loser yet. Unlike the rest of your leagues, our merry go round has not stopped yet. With the right pick ups from the FCS ranks and the removal of Idaho, we'll turn out fine. It stunk losing MTSU and WKU, but UNT had 1 foot out the door for a couple years, and the Florida twins have good programs, but were heavily isolated by geography.

App and GS were very good adds, and will likely replace the production of MTSU and WKU within a couple of years. Texas State's production is no worse than what UNT gave us for the last 10 years. We've just got to find a better on field product to replace the F_U's

UCONN and Cinci are the only true losers of realignment.

(06-14-2015 06:53 PM)mistabinks Wrote:  UCONN and Cinci are the only true losers of realignment.

Not Southern Miss?

Wasn't UConn I-AA until about 6-8 years ago?

Southern Mississippi isn't a loser in all this. They weren't ever a member of a P5 to begin with. CUSA wasn't really hurt too badly from the defections to the AAC. I don't consider Rice a loser in realignment either for the same reasons and we may even be better off here in CUSA after all the private schools that left.

(06-18-2015 04:10 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Southern Mississippi isn't a loser in all this. They weren't ever a member of a P5 to begin with. CUSA wasn't really hurt too badly from the defections to the AAC. I don't consider Rice a loser in realignment either for the same reasons and we may even be better off here in CUSA after all the private schools that left.

Well said. And I agree, in the long run I believe Rice will be better off with fewer private schools in the conference. C-USA 2.0 had too many small private schools in it. Individually, each of the private schools were nice, but having 4 in the western division, really seemed to limit the growth potential of the old C-USA West.

We don't have a single goddamned rival left after 100 years of mostly excellent football. Yeah, we're fine.

(06-18-2015 04:10 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Southern Mississippi isn't a loser in all this. They weren't ever a member of a P5 to begin with. CUSA wasn't really hurt too badly from the defections to the AAC. I don't consider Rice a loser in realignment either for the same reasons and we may even be better off here in CUSA after all the private schools that left.

We weren't a member of the P5. We were a member of what's now called the AAC, and it was a much better league than the current incarnation of CUSA. It even included Louisville and TCU. We got much more national exposure. Hell, we had Corso/Herbstreit/etc. in Hattiesburg for a game. That's not happening in this conference.

(06-18-2015 04:10 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Southern Mississippi isn't a loser in all this. They weren't ever a member of a P5 to begin with. CUSA wasn't really hurt too badly from the defections to the AAC. I don't consider Rice a loser in realignment either for the same reasons and we may even be better off here in CUSA after all the private schools that left.

This Rice fan disagrees completely. The university recognizes this and is trying to get back to our former mates. If you don't think Rice would rather pair back with UH, Tulane, and SMU, then you haven't talked to the admin directly.

(06-18-2015 07:48 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 04:10 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Southern Mississippi isn't a loser in all this. They weren't ever a member of a P5 to begin with. CUSA wasn't really hurt too badly from the defections to the AAC. I don't consider Rice a loser in realignment either for the same reasons and we may even be better off here in CUSA after all the private schools that left.

We weren't a member of the P5. We were a member of what's now called the AAC, and it was a much better league than the current incarnation of CUSA. It even included Louisville and TCU. We got much more national exposure. Hell, we had Corso/Herbstreit/etc. in Hattiesburg for a game. That's not happening in this conference.

If USM had sustained the consistent success it had in football for all those years under Bower and had built a good basketball program, you'd have an argument for USM being a loser in realignment.

(06-18-2015 09:44 PM)WIowl Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 04:10 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Southern Mississippi isn't a loser in all this. They weren't ever a member of a P5 to begin with. CUSA wasn't really hurt too badly from the defections to the AAC. I don't consider Rice a loser in realignment either for the same reasons and we may even be better off here in CUSA after all the private schools that left.

This Rice fan disagrees completely. The university recognizes this and is trying to get back to our former mates. If you don't think Rice would rather pair back with UH, Tulane, and SMU, then you haven't talked to the admin directly.

I know no one in administration, and if I did, I would expect them to voice a desire to improve the university's athletics position. Everyone wants that. The good news is that Rice will be able to rekindle it's rivalry with UH without the added baggage of having to play Tulsa, Tulane, and SMU. I'll take Louisiana Tech, UTSA, and North Texas over those guys any day. At the worst, it's a push. Things get even more interesting when USM gets it's football back to where it once was.

(06-18-2015 07:48 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 04:10 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Southern Mississippi isn't a loser in all this. They weren't ever a member of a P5 to begin with. CUSA wasn't really hurt too badly from the defections to the AAC. I don't consider Rice a loser in realignment either for the same reasons and we may even be better off here in CUSA after all the private schools that left.

We weren't a member of the P5. We were a member of what's now called the AAC, and it was a much better league than the current incarnation of CUSA. It even included Louisville and TCU. We got much more national exposure. Hell, we had Corso/Herbstreit/etc. in Hattiesburg for a game. That's not happening in this conference.

First off you talk like UofL was always a player in football...

5 out of 9 years in CUSA UofL won 7 or less games

It's been 11 years since TCU or UofL played in CUSA so while of course CUSA was a better conference with both of those schools in it....

both leaving doesn't play any role in S. Miss sucking or being a huge part of why CUSA is not a better conference. So did realignment hurt S. Miss most likely but not the way you're thinking.

Nope other schools moving up has played a larger role in S. Miss being where they are today. The SBC playing FBS football played a larger and most likely the key role in S. Miss being a average to below average to just plain awful football program over most of the last 14 years...along with 3 or 4 very good seasons

The entire AAC is the biggest loser in realignment, some members more than others.

(06-18-2015 10:31 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 07:48 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 04:10 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Southern Mississippi isn't a loser in all this. They weren't ever a member of a P5 to begin with. CUSA wasn't really hurt too badly from the defections to the AAC. I don't consider Rice a loser in realignment either for the same reasons and we may even be better off here in CUSA after all the private schools that left.

We weren't a member of the P5. We were a member of what's now called the AAC, and it was a much better league than the current incarnation of CUSA. It even included Louisville and TCU. We got much more national exposure. Hell, we had Corso/Herbstreit/etc. in Hattiesburg for a game. That's not happening in this conference.

If USM had sustained the consistent success it had in football for all those years under Bower and had built a good basketball program, you'd have an argument for USM being a loser in realignment.

These decisions aren't made in a vacuum. I cannot believe that conference commissioners would look at USM and say "**** them, they went 0-12 last year, they're clearly trash" and ignore all the years of success and support they had on the football field.

USM lost out simply because they're in a rural area in the poorest state in the country. CUSA succeeded all those years because they pulled in growing schools with great potential in high growth markets. Most of those schools were successfully groomed up and moved on. USM is a victim of geography more than anything else.

(06-19-2015 07:47 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  The entire AAC is the biggest loser in realignment, some members more than others.

Absolutely, but we'd all still like to be there.

(06-18-2015 10:42 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 09:44 PM)WIowl Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 04:10 PM)Afflicted Wrote:  Southern Mississippi isn't a loser in all this. They weren't ever a member of a P5 to begin with. CUSA wasn't really hurt too badly from the defections to the AAC. I don't consider Rice a loser in realignment either for the same reasons and we may even be better off here in CUSA after all the private schools that left.

This Rice fan disagrees completely. The university recognizes this and is trying to get back to our former mates. If you don't think Rice would rather pair back with UH, Tulane, and SMU, then you haven't talked to the admin directly.

I know no one in administration, and if I did, I would expect them to voice a desire to improve the university's athletics position. Everyone wants that. The good news is that Rice will be able to rekindle it's rivalry with UH without the added baggage of having to play Tulsa, Tulane, and SMU. I'll take Louisiana Tech, UTSA, and North Texas over those guys any day. At the worst, it's a push. Things get even more interesting when USM gets it's football back to where it once was.

Baggage? Tulane=AAU, SMU and Tulsa=Top 100 schools, UH is a huge rival that would free up space for additional non-conference opponents.

Although it sounds like it's not important to you, Rice does care about the academic make up of its conference. AAC is a MAJOR step up. It's not a push when academics and athletics are considered, and Rice will consider both.