(12-11-2018 12:48 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 10:48 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  It goes against the general narrative, but I have never believed that ESPN has been pushing anyone to go anywhere. They react to where people go and they grudgingly give more money when conferences become more valuable (to keep them) or when they risk losing value they have already paid for with teams possibly leaving. They don't actually have an agenda about where schools are supposed to go though.

The grant of rights value is valuable to ESPN/FOX/etc because it means they know exactly what they are getting for the whole period (potentially a school could leave toward the end, but till then it would be expensive to actually buy back the rights). They are willing to pay extra for that and the talk in the American is whether to take that extra and divide mostly among the biggest flight risks or take less money and allow more chance of someone leaving.

Note: I dislike many thing about ESPN and have refused to even download their fantasy app as a result, but still think too much is attributed to them. They do not want possible lawsuits and damage to their brand by trying to push schools one way or the other.

“ESPN told us what to do”—Boston College guy with regards to the ACC raiding the Big East.

He came off as a real nitwit or at least dimwit.

It's far more nuanced.
Commissioner: we are think about adding Northeastsouthwestern
ESPN: That doesn't move the needle for us. We would stand pat on our contract.
Commissioner: Humm we've also thought about Enormous State University.
ESPN: Well with them added we would be willing to replace the current contract and pay $$$$ to get it extended for another four years.
BC: ESPN told us what to do.

(12-11-2018 12:48 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 10:48 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  It goes against the general narrative, but I have never believed that ESPN has been pushing anyone to go anywhere. They react to where people go and they grudgingly give more money when conferences become more valuable (to keep them) or when they risk losing value they have already paid for with teams possibly leaving. They don't actually have an agenda about where schools are supposed to go though.

The grant of rights value is valuable to ESPN/FOX/etc because it means they know exactly what they are getting for the whole period (potentially a school could leave toward the end, but till then it would be expensive to actually buy back the rights). They are willing to pay extra for that and the talk in the American is whether to take that extra and divide mostly among the biggest flight risks or take less money and allow more chance of someone leaving.

Note: I dislike many thing about ESPN and have refused to even download their fantasy app as a result, but still think too much is attributed to them. They do not want possible lawsuits and damage to their brand by trying to push schools one way or the other.

“ESPN told us what to do”—Boston College guy with regards to the ACC raiding the Big East.

TV execs were at the MWC airport meeting - one of which was Mike Aresco.

(12-11-2018 04:30 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 12:48 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 10:48 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  It goes against the general narrative, but I have never believed that ESPN has been pushing anyone to go anywhere. They react to where people go and they grudgingly give more money when conferences become more valuable (to keep them) or when they risk losing value they have already paid for with teams possibly leaving. They don't actually have an agenda about where schools are supposed to go though.

The grant of rights value is valuable to ESPN/FOX/etc because it means they know exactly what they are getting for the whole period (potentially a school could leave toward the end, but till then it would be expensive to actually buy back the rights). They are willing to pay extra for that and the talk in the American is whether to take that extra and divide mostly among the biggest flight risks or take less money and allow more chance of someone leaving.

Note: I dislike many thing about ESPN and have refused to even download their fantasy app as a result, but still think too much is attributed to them. They do not want possible lawsuits and damage to their brand by trying to push schools one way or the other.

“ESPN told us what to do”—Boston College guy with regards to the ACC raiding the Big East.

TV execs were at the MWC airport meeting - one of which was Mike Aresco.

Is that true?

(12-11-2018 04:06 PM)Billy Bob Bearcat Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 03:33 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 03:22 PM)Billy Bob Bearcat Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 09:48 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

If ESPN was offering $12 to 15 mil a year for the BSU and SDSU rights they are asking where to sign. I couldn't disagree more with your second point. The $10 million pay raise easily covers travel, and the amount of exposure compared to the current MWC would be night and day.

ESPN is not going to make such an offer. It is fairy tale land.

$8 mil (often rumored number for the AAC) x 12 teams = $96 mil
$96 mil / 8 teams = $12 mil

The question would be is the smaller conference worth more or less as a whole? More brand names, less markets, more consistent matchups, less inventory, and more time slots all factor into it.

The last time they built a new FB conference totally out of scratch was in 1999 when they created the MWC. But all those schools had been playing together in WAC for several decades...not only 5 schools.

Well, ESPN's back up plan for the Big 12 is likely to add Houston, Memphis, Cincinnati, UCF, and USF to the Big 12 should the principle players move to other leagues.

(12-11-2018 08:59 AM)Billy Bob Bearcat Wrote:  I posted the following in a thread on the AAC forums, but I would like to get some perspective from people outside the conference allegiances. This is all hypothetical, and I am no expert. The premise is that the "Fortunate Five" teams (UC, UCF, USF, Memphis, and UH) were offered more money because ESPN wants them to leave the dead weight of the American. ESPN has killed conferences in the past, and it is hard to see how Tulsa/Tulane conference games involving Tulsa/Tulane add any real future value to the network. The below conference lineup may serve all parties involved, and could make sense for a grant of rights.

"Fortunate Five"

Cincinnati
UCF
USF
Memphis
Houston

The Best of the West

Boise St
BYU
SDSU

Basketball and Olympics Only

Wichita
Gonzaga

Add 1 or 2 if the network wants more conference football inventory

Temple (More Eastern time slots)
Fresno St (More Late night time slots)
Colorado St

With a potential lineup of 8 football with 2 basketball, ESPN would get the best football outside of the P5 and a clear Tweener conference. The basketball in this league would also provide premium match-ups worthy of national time slots. I also don't see it unrealistic for this inventory to get a significant raise to the individual schools. With only 8 football mouths to feed, $15 mil a school comes out to $120 mil annually. Add an additional $8-10 mil ($130 mil total) to secure the GOR for the basketball schools, and I believe all of these schools would actually consider the GOR.

We can get into the debate about value, and if this lineup is worth $15 or $6mil per team. We are not tv networks executives and it is hard to judge value. I do think this lineup provides conference football games of significance every week. I think it also eliminates any discussion on the 6th best conference. This lineup also serves both Eastern and Western time slots for programming.

As I have put more thought into it, I also think there would be value to ESPN if something did happen to the Big 12. If this new conference is locked in with GOR and a considerable deal at $15mil a year, it is possible to see a path were the B12 remainder actually gets absorbed (into a 100% ESPN contract) instead of poaching replacements. With these 8 teams off the board, there wouldn't before enough for the B12 remainder to poach to create the necessary value to get a better contract.

So in short, I think it makes sense for all parties. What would the arguments be against? What would the major hurdles be to this kind of move?

I can't see Boise or BYU jumping into a east coast/central time zone heavy conference, but they do seem to fit the financial and commitment profile your collection of programs need to find.

Personally, I think you should keep Navy in your group. They are a national brand, with a national following. The right combination of school, might result in a higher payout then what their separate media deal offers. If that is the case, they would probably dump their media deal. I think this collection of programs could pry Colorado State and Air Force away from the MWC. Then, if Army was interested, add them too. I believe right now these are the best options for creating a stronger competitive conference that could generate move revenue. But, I believe the pecking order could change within the next 5 to 10 years, and better options could surface.


New Conference

Cincinnati
Memphis
Houston
Navy
UCF
USF
Air Force
Army
Colorado State

(12-11-2018 01:15 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  For a league that apparently was not talking about a GOR, Aresco and Bowen certainly had a lot of explanations of a GOR.

Maybe you didn't know this but at the onset of a lot of negotiations almost anything and everything is on the table that's why they aren't done in public. Now if someone heard a tidbit of something out of context and decided to churn a butt load of clicks from a bunch of desperate fans from a conference not built to last, enjoy your version of sports porn. The only awkwardness about this situation is that it's distracting them from their legitimate work in order to snuff out this fake news along with your hopes of UCONN coming in to save your sub par ratings before your contract is up.

(12-11-2018 03:09 PM)cmett003 Wrote:  Big 10
Texas
Oklahoma
Ohio St.
Michigan
Penn State
Illinois
Iowa
Nebraska
Rutgers
Michigan State
Minnasota
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Indiana
Maryland
Purdue

Big 12
TCU
Baylor
Oklahoma State
Texas Tech
Iowa State
West Virginia
Kansas State
Kansas
Houston
Memphis
UCF
USF
Cincinatti
UConn

Without UConn, UH, Cincy, Memphis, UCF and USF the American is no longer above the other G5 conferences and should join the regional split with C-USA and Sunbelt. This acutally is one of the best regional splits I have come up with but it probably will never happen.

AAC
Witchita St
Tulsa
North Texas
Rice
UTEP
SMU
Texas State
UTSA
Tulane
Louisiana Lafayette
Louisiana Monroe
La Tech

C-USA
Temple
Old Dominion
Navy
ECU
Marshall
WKU
App State
Charlotte
UMass
Liberty
JMU
MTSU

Sunbelt
Southern Miss
UAB
Troy
Coastal Carolina
Ga Southern
Ga State
FIU
FAU
South Alabama
Arkansas State

This actually realistic and reasonable. It has a very clean and balanced feel to it. Good job.

There is nobody outside the AAC fan club who believes the $8M offer per school.

The only reason to offer that much and uneven, would be if ESPN wants to subsidize the 5 lucky dogs to support and groom them as Big 12 replacements. In which case that would only make sense if it ends June 2025.

The thinking here is OU, KU and Texas leave in 2025. So take the best of the American and merge with the rump of the Big 12. And they can forget the rest.

UConn is a Big East (Fox) sympathizer; Navy as an academy is more a CBS property; Wichita State doesn't have football and Greg Marshall is likely to move on by 2025; SMU, Tulsa and Tulane are smaller following private schools who are minor players even in their home towns; ECU is far from any metro, nobody cares; Temple's glory days are ages ago, and it's demotion to the MAC still stains it.

I look at this and think, why would ESPN want to invest in this past June 2025? Why would any of those five want to tie themselves to those anchors past that date and lose a chance at the Big 12?

If a GOR is a requirement for such a large deal --which is still tiny compared to the $36M per school the Big 12 distributes now, and less far less than a modest 3% a year increase makes that $43 Million in 2024-- would ESPN really want it to last past 2025?

But why would a GOR improve the offer? Is UConn or Tulsa agreeing really necessary? Who else besides and ESPN product like the B12 is going to poach anyone from this group anyway?

When I look at this, a higher payout for the 5 makes sense for ESPN, a contract to 2025 makes sense for ESPN, but a GOR does not. Same true for Fox, as they are the other partner in the B12 deal. Now CBS I can see wanting a GOR if they are the high bidder. This would handcuff ESPN and Fox for the B12 in 2025, protect their investment in the AAC (if they are doing so). But I have a hard time believing CBS would bid up the American, as I don't see how that fits their strategy (SEC plus Academies).

I suspect this is another (old Big East, new American) ploy dreamed up by the league office that throws out almost believable numbers to the members in an effort to get them to lock into the leadership plan. And just like all desperate people, some, even most, of these schools may believe the dog and pony show. But almost everyone outside AAC fandom scratches their head and says, 'those numbers don't sound right.'

(12-11-2018 04:06 PM)Billy Bob Bearcat Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 03:33 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 03:22 PM)Billy Bob Bearcat Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 09:48 AM)DustMyBroom Wrote:  

If ESPN was offering $12 to 15 mil a year for the BSU and SDSU rights they are asking where to sign. I couldn't disagree more with your second point. The $10 million pay raise easily covers travel, and the amount of exposure compared to the current MWC would be night and day.

ESPN is not going to make such an offer. It is fairy tale land.

$8 mil (often rumored number for the AAC) x 12 teams = $96 mil
$96 mil / 8 teams = $12 mil

The question would be is the smaller conference worth more or less as a whole? More brand names, less markets, more consistent matchups, less inventory, and more time slots all factor into it.

I like your thinking. This is something that I posted on the AAC board, tell what you think. I think that if the rumored starting bid is supposedly 3-4 x the AAC current payout of about 2.6mil or a max of 10.4mil. Then the actual final amount could very well be around 12-13 mil. Why? Because no one accepts the opening bid and everyone knows that right. Open with 3-4 times more then settle for 5-6 times 2.6mil for a max of 12.9-15.5 mil. Just thinking.

(12-11-2018 03:09 PM)cmett003 Wrote:  Big 10
Texas
Oklahoma
Ohio St.
Michigan
Penn State
Illinois
Iowa
Nebraska
Rutgers
Michigan State
Minnasota
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Indiana
Maryland
Purdue

Big 12
TCU
Baylor
Oklahoma State
Texas Tech
Iowa State
West Virginia
Kansas State
Kansas
Houston
Memphis
UCF
USF
Cincinatti
UConn

Without UConn, UH, Cincy, Memphis, UCF and USF the American is no longer above the other G5 conferences and should join the regional split with C-USA and Sunbelt. This acutally is one of the best regional splits I have come up with but it probably will never happen.

AAC
Witchita St
Tulsa
North Texas
Rice
UTEP
SMU
Texas State
UTSA
Tulane
Louisiana Lafayette
Louisiana Monroe
La Tech

C-USA
Temple
Old Dominion
Navy
ECU
Marshall
WKU
App State
Charlotte
UMass
Liberty
JMU
MTSU

Sunbelt
Southern Miss
UAB
Troy
Coastal Carolina
Ga Southern
Ga State
FIU
FAU
South Alabama
Arkansas State

As a North Texas fan, this does not work for me. Although these programs are relatively close regionally, some are miles apart when it comes to resources and commitment. Wichita State pays their basketball coach $3,000,000 a season. That is about 1/5 of UL-Monroe's entire athletic budget.

To me, regional affiliation is not as important as conferencing with programs that will provide the strongest competition for our teams.

(12-11-2018 09:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Here's the problem with this setup. To keep an auto bid to the NCAA basketball tourney, which IS important, they would need besides those 5 teams 2 other teams from the AAC that have been there thruout. So I think Temple is almost a lock. Would need 1 more. Could very well be SMU....

Which would mean from the AAC group- the 7 teams that were in the conference year 1 would be the 7.

No, those are the old rules. Under the new rules, the conference has to satisfy multi sport rules for enough consecutive years to get an autobid.

That allowed the WAC to survive but also killed off another "airport meeting" conference.

Since the old Big East created their "divorce" by laws under the old rule, the new Big East applied for a waiver to set up under the old rule, and as a multi bid conference, nobody begrudged them the autobid and the waiver was granted.

(12-11-2018 09:45 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 09:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Here's the problem with this setup. To keep an auto bid to the NCAA basketball tourney, which IS important, they would need besides those 5 teams 2 other teams from the AAC that have been there thruout. So I think Temple is almost a lock. Would need 1 more. Could very well be SMU....

Which would mean from the AAC group- the 7 teams that were in the conference year 1 would be the 7.

No, those are the old rules. Under the new rules, the conference has to satisfy multi sport rules for enough consecutive years to get an autobid.

That allowed the WAC to survive but also killed off another "airport meeting" conference.

Since the old Big East created their "divorce" by laws under the old rule, the new Big East applied for a waiver to set up under the old rule, and as a multi bid conference, nobody begrudged them the autobid and the waiver was granted.

They really do not want a large conference to split in two, or two conferences to divide up into three, and get an extra autobid as a reward.

(12-11-2018 10:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 09:45 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-11-2018 09:53 AM)stever20 Wrote:  Here's the problem with this setup. To keep an auto bid to the NCAA basketball tourney, which IS important, they would need besides those 5 teams 2 other teams from the AAC that have been there thruout. So I think Temple is almost a lock. Would need 1 more. Could very well be SMU....

Which would mean from the AAC group- the 7 teams that were in the conference year 1 would be the 7.

No, those are the old rules. Under the new rules, the conference has to satisfy multi sport rules for enough consecutive years to get an autobid.

That allowed the WAC to survive but also killed off another "airport meeting" conference.

Since the old Big East created their "divorce" by laws under the old rule, the new Big East applied for a waiver to set up under the old rule, and as a multi bid conference, nobody begrudged them the autobid and the waiver was granted.

They really do not want a large conference to split in two, or two conferences to divide up into three, and get an extra autobid as a reward.

As I’ve said a before. A long time high level admistrator who has been around the block in several leagues from SEC to below says, the NCAA would have no qualms giving a new league an auto bid IF it did not increase the number of auto bids. So if you are going to split, make sure you kill another league in the process and that is hard to do (see the WAC).

(12-11-2018 10:48 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  It goes against the general narrative, but I have never believed that ESPN has been pushing anyone to go anywhere. They react to where people go and they grudgingly give more money when conferences become more valuable (to keep them) or when they risk losing value they have already paid for with teams possibly leaving. They don't actually have an agenda about where schools are supposed to go though.

The grant of rights value is valuable to ESPN/FOX/etc because it means they know exactly what they are getting for the whole period (potentially a school could leave toward the end, but till then it would be expensive to actually buy back the rights). They are willing to pay extra for that and the talk in the American is whether to take that extra and divide mostly among the biggest flight risks or take less money and allow more chance of someone leaving.

Note: I dislike many thing about ESPN and have refused to even download their fantasy app as a result, but still think too much is attributed to them. They do not want possible lawsuits and damage to their brand by trying to push schools one way or the other.

Agree. Realignment typically COSTS ESPN money. It doesnt save them money. Yeah---they got the Big East/AAC for 20 million but they paid--

Pitt-20
Syracuse-20
Louisville-20
Rutgers-20
ND-10
W Virginia-20
C7-40
TCU-20
Boise-3
SDSU-1
AAC-20

Cost---$194 million
Thats more than the 140 million dollars a year they offered the Big East in April of 2011.

Big 10
Texas
Oklahoma
Ohio St.
Michigan
Penn State
Illinois
Iowa
Nebraska
Rutgers
Michigan State
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Indiana
Maryland
Purdue

Big 12
TCU
Baylor
Oklahoma State
Texas Tech
Iowa State
West Virginia
Kansas State
Kansas
Houston
UCF
USF
BYU

Southwestern League
Wichita St (hoops only)
Tulsa
North Texas
Rice
UTEP
NMSU
SMU
Texas State
UTSA
Tulane
La Tech
USM
Arkansas State

North/Eastern League
UMass
UConn
Temple
Cincinnati
Marshall
Old Dominion
Liberty
ECU
App State
Charlotte

SEC-Lite
Coastal Carolina
Ga Southern
Ga State
MTSU
WKU
FIU
FAU
UAB
Troy
South Alabama
Louisiana
Louisiana-Monroe

Independent
Army
Navy

(12-11-2018 08:59 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  There is nobody outside the AAC fan club who believes the $8M offer per school.

The only reason to offer that much and uneven, would be if ESPN wants to subsidize the 5 lucky dogs to support and groom them as Big 12 replacements. In which case that would only make sense if it ends June 2025.

The thinking here is OU, KU and Texas leave in 2025. So take the best of the American and merge with the rump of the Big 12. And they can forget the rest.

UConn is a Big East (Fox) sympathizer; Navy as an academy is more a CBS property; Wichita State doesn't have football and Greg Marshall is likely to move on by 2025; SMU, Tulsa and Tulane are smaller following private schools who are minor players even in their home towns; ECU is far from any metro, nobody cares; Temple's glory days are ages ago, and it's demotion to the MAC still stains it.

I look at this and think, why would ESPN want to invest in this past June 2025? Why would any of those five want to tie themselves to those anchors past that date and lose a chance at the Big 12?

If a GOR is a requirement for such a large deal --which is still tiny compared to the $36M per school the Big 12 distributes now, and less far less than a modest 3% a year increase makes that $43 Million in 2024-- would ESPN really want it to last past 2025?

But why would a GOR improve the offer? Is UConn or Tulsa agreeing really necessary? Who else besides and ESPN product like the B12 is going to poach anyone from this group anyway?

When I look at this, a higher payout for the 5 makes sense for ESPN, a contract to 2025 makes sense for ESPN, but a GOR does not. Same true for Fox, as they are the other partner in the B12 deal. Now CBS I can see wanting a GOR if they are the high bidder. This would handcuff ESPN and Fox for the B12 in 2025, protect their investment in the AAC (if they are doing so). But I have a hard time believing CBS would bid up the American, as I don't see how that fits their strategy (SEC plus Academies).

I suspect this is another (old Big East, new American) ploy dreamed up by the league office that throws out almost believable numbers to the members in an effort to get them to lock into the leadership plan. And just like all desperate people, some, even most, of these schools may believe the dog and pony show. But almost everyone outside AAC fandom scratches their head and says, 'those numbers don't sound right.'

The 6-8 figure thrown out by Sports Business Journal sounds about to me. My guess is the GOR was just brain storming on things that might bring more value. The unequal pay tiers was probably a working group idea looking to see if there were any real way to entice reluctant schools to sign a GOR. I dont think there is a way to get all the AAC schools to sign a GOR...not to mention uneven revenue sharing tends to be a bad idea for conference unity and competitiveness.

(12-11-2018 08:59 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  There is nobody outside the AAC fan club who believes the $8M offer per school.

The only reason to offer that much and uneven, would be if ESPN wants to subsidize the 5 lucky dogs to support and groom them as Big 12 replacements. In which case that would only make sense if it ends June 2025.

The thinking here is OU, KU and Texas leave in 2025. So take the best of the American and merge with the rump of the Big 12. And they can forget the rest.

UConn is a Big East (Fox) sympathizer; Navy as an academy is more a CBS property; Wichita State doesn't have football and Greg Marshall is likely to move on by 2025; SMU, Tulsa and Tulane are smaller following private schools who are minor players even in their home towns; ECU is far from any metro, nobody cares; Temple's glory days are ages ago, and it's demotion to the MAC still stains it.

I look at this and think, why would ESPN want to invest in this past June 2025? Why would any of those five want to tie themselves to those anchors past that date and lose a chance at the Big 12?

If a GOR is a requirement for such a large deal --which is still tiny compared to the $36M per school the Big 12 distributes now, and less far less than a modest 3% a year increase makes that $43 Million in 2024-- would ESPN really want it to last past 2025?

But why would a GOR improve the offer? Is UConn or Tulsa agreeing really necessary? Who else besides and ESPN product like the B12 is going to poach anyone from this group anyway?

When I look at this, a higher payout for the 5 makes sense for ESPN, a contract to 2025 makes sense for ESPN, but a GOR does not. Same true for Fox, as they are the other partner in the B12 deal. Now CBS I can see wanting a GOR if they are the high bidder. This would handcuff ESPN and Fox for the B12 in 2025, protect their investment in the AAC (if they are doing so). But I have a hard time believing CBS would bid up the American, as I don't see how that fits their strategy (SEC plus Academies).

I suspect this is another (old Big East, new American) ploy dreamed up by the league office that throws out almost believable numbers to the members in an effort to get them to lock into the leadership plan. And just like all desperate people, some, even most, of these schools may believe the dog and pony show. But almost everyone outside AAC fandom scratches their head and says, 'those numbers don't sound right.'

Lets not forget that ESPN do love Boise State, North Dakota State, BYU and Northern Illinois outside of the AAC 5. NDSU have been given more ESPN Game Day as the game of the week more than any G5 schools. I think ESPN want to groom them as well.

(12-11-2018 08:40 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I can't see Boise or BYU jumping into a east coast/central time zone heavy conference, but they do seem to fit the financial and commitment profile your collection of programs need to find.

AFAIU, so long as BYU is free to choose, and so long as Utah is in an "P5" conference, BYU will go to a conference if the conference is a "P5" or equivalent.

So if BYU is needed to step up in status, that needs to be a step all the way to a contract for a NY6 bowl in order to land BYU.

That is a hurdle, the move still needs to make sense otherwise.

(12-11-2018 03:09 PM)cmett003 Wrote:  Big 10
Texas
Oklahoma
Ohio St.
Michigan
Penn State
Illinois
Iowa
Nebraska
Rutgers
Michigan State
Minnasota
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Indiana
Maryland
Purdue

Big 12
TCU
Baylor
Oklahoma State
Texas Tech
Iowa State
West Virginia
Kansas State
Kansas
Houston
Memphis
UCF
USF
Cincinatti
UConn

Without UConn, UH, Cincy, Memphis, UCF and USF the American is no longer above the other G5 conferences and should join the regional split with C-USA and Sunbelt. This acutally is one of the best regional splits I have come up with but it probably will never happen.

AAC
Witchita St
Tulsa
North Texas
Rice
UTEP
SMU
Texas State
UTSA
Tulane
Louisiana Lafayette
Louisiana Monroe
La Tech

C-USA
Temple
Old Dominion
Navy
ECU
Marshall
WKU
App State
Charlotte
UMass
Liberty
JMU
MTSU

Sunbelt
Southern Miss
UAB
Troy
Coastal Carolina
Ga Southern
Ga State
FIU
FAU
South Alabama
Arkansas State

Kudos on making a map, but it's missing UTEP. Re: the alignment, how about dropping ULM to the Southland and adding Arkansas State (full) and NMSU (FB only)? Then shift MTSU and WKU to the Sun Belt and CCU to CUSA. Finally, tack FB-only Army on to CUSA. The result:

AAC: 11 full members, 1 non-FB, 1 FB only
CUSA: 10 full members, 2 FB only
SBC: 10 full members