REALIGNMENT MOCK DRAFT .:. ON THE CLOCK: Big South (R2, #12), AAC (R1, #8) [pending trade approval], Big12 (R1, #11)

Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
2018 Final Conference Rankings (Massey Composite)
Author Message
Shrack Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,717
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 57
I Root For: UAB
Location:
Post: #21
RE: 2018 Final Conference Rankings (Massey Composite)
(01-10-2019 09:10 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  
(01-10-2019 07:56 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(01-10-2019 06:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-10-2019 02:44 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  It was a good year for the Sun Belt, but it’s not an unfamiliar spot. They’ve finished 3rd best among the G5 3 times in the last 6 seasons (2018, 2016, 2013).

Interesting. I had assumed the SB had always been around last. Not sure why.

The Sun Belt always gave me that sense, as well. But, after thinking, the top of the conference is GOOD. It does carry some dead weight. It should rid itself of Texas St and UL Monroe. Keep the remaining 8 and invite FAU, FIU, MTSU, WKU, SOMS, UAB, LT, NTX.

West: North Texas, Arkansas St, Louisiana Tech, UL Lafayette, Southern Miss, UAB, South Alabama, Troy
East: Wesrern Kentucky, Middle Tennessee St, Appalachian St, Coastal Carolina, Georgia St, Georgia Southern, Florida Atlantic, Florida International

This new Sun Belt would be very good.

FAU and FIU were the dead weight when they were in the Sun Belt. They left the Sun Belt to join CUSA with MTSU, WKU, and UNT who were all thinking they were taking a step up when in reality it was a step to the left. On top of that they added UNCC, ODU, UTSA, and UTEP which further drove down CUSA's historic competitiveness until now they find themselves at the bottom of the FBS with the worst media deal, worst conference payout, and worst travel expenses compared to budget.

Meanwhile, instead of raiding the bottom teams of adjacent conferences, the Sun Belt added historically strong teams from the FCS who were ready to compete right away. The rest is history.
UTEP has been in CUSA since 2005 with CUSA 2.0 and used to be a top 50 RPI basketball program for a while with top notch bball attendance. They would also average 30 to 40k a year in football but they've just been terrible for so long.

We added La. Tech

LT, ODU, WKU, MTSU were overall good adds and FAU and FIU are finally trending up, same with UNT. Charlotte hasn't done anything since they joined. UTSA is hit and miss.

WKU had some down years and got a new coach. USM needs to get a splash hire cause their current guy is just mediocre. I'm not sure UTEP will ever be good with the guys they keep hiring



Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
(This post was last modified: 01-10-2019 05:28 PM by Shrack.)
01-10-2019 05:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UTEPDallas Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,331
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation: 140
I Root For: UTEP/Penn State
Location: Dallas, TX
Post: #22
RE: 2018 Final Conference Rankings (Massey Composite)
(01-10-2019 09:10 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  
(01-10-2019 07:56 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  
(01-10-2019 06:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-10-2019 02:44 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  It was a good year for the Sun Belt, but it’s not an unfamiliar spot. They’ve finished 3rd best among the G5 3 times in the last 6 seasons (2018, 2016, 2013).

Interesting. I had assumed the SB had always been around last. Not sure why.

The Sun Belt always gave me that sense, as well. But, after thinking, the top of the conference is GOOD. It does carry some dead weight. It should rid itself of Texas St and UL Monroe. Keep the remaining 8 and invite FAU, FIU, MTSU, WKU, SOMS, UAB, LT, NTX.

West: North Texas, Arkansas St, Louisiana Tech, UL Lafayette, Southern Miss, UAB, South Alabama, Troy
East: Wesrern Kentucky, Middle Tennessee St, Appalachian St, Coastal Carolina, Georgia St, Georgia Southern, Florida Atlantic, Florida International

This new Sun Belt would be very good.

FAU and FIU were the dead weight when they were in the Sun Belt. They left the Sun Belt to join CUSA with MTSU, WKU, and UNT who were all thinking they were taking a step up when in reality it was a step to the left. On top of that they added UNCC, ODU, UTSA, and UTEP which further drove down CUSA's historic competitiveness until now they find themselves at the bottom of the FBS with the worst media deal, worst conference payout, and worst travel expenses compared to budget.

Meanwhile, instead of raiding the bottom teams of adjacent conferences, the Sun Belt added historically strong teams from the FCS who were ready to compete right away. The rest is history.

What historical competitiveness?

C-USA has been bad since July 1, 2005.

It was a legit basketball conference in its first version. It was a 3-5 bid league and football was becoming competitive with TCU, Louisville and Southern Miss.

In its second version, it was a one bid league under Calipari’s Memphis who eventually left and got the Tigers in trouble. UTEP and UAB challenged Memphis but it wasn’t enough to beat them. The rest of the conference were RPI killers which hurt UTEP and UAB. Our football champs were constantly embarrassed in OOC and bowls. The only time the 2.0 shined was when ranked Houston hosted ranked Southern Miss in the CCG with a BCS bid on the line for Houston which we all know lost.

3.0 is not that different from 2.0 from a competitive standpoint but we don’t have a team or two in football and basketball that’s separating from the rest. Like 2.0, 3.0 are a bunch of mediocre teams beating other mediocre teams. Some people call it parity. I call it mediocrity. Yes, UTEP is guilty as charged. We had an AD who kept coaches for too long. Mike Price should’ve been fired after the 2009 season and Tim Floyd after the 2014 season. Luckily that AD retired and those two coaches are gone but it’ll be hard to motivate the fanbase again. We went from a solid 28k-30k in football and 8k in basketball to 17k and 5k respectively.

That’s why I laugh when people look at 2.0 as this conference that was like the MWC of Utah, BYU and TCU. It sucked losing teams to the Big East/AAC but UCF didn’t take off until they left. Same for Houston and Memphis. SMU is still SMU, Tulane still sucks and Tulsa and East Carolina tanked.
01-10-2019 06:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,083
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 457
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #23
RE: 2018 Final Conference Rankings (Massey Composite)
(01-10-2019 03:24 PM)stever20 Wrote:  
(01-10-2019 03:13 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-10-2019 03:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  
(01-10-2019 02:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-10-2019 01:10 PM)bullet Wrote:  The whole restructuring weakened both the CUSA and Sun Belt schools and made a bigger gap vs. the P5.

They are competing with more schools in the same region for talent. There are 15 schools who were in FBS in 2011 from those two conferences. Now there are 24. If you throw in the southern AAC schools as recruiting the same talent, its still an increase from 23 to 32.

The growing gap has less to do with rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and more to do with simply allowing more and more teams into the FBS. The barriers to entry are far too low. Those new FBS schools aren't being added to the top conferences. They are being added at the bottom. The NCAA had it about right when it originally split the division in 1978. If we'd stopped there, we wouldn't be talking about a gap at all.
in 1978, there were 138 teams. so in a lot of ways, we're back to where it was after the split. now there was a thinning of course after that.....

Depending on whether you count the MAC as being FBS (they were initially relegated to FCS, but successfully clawed their way back via a lawsuit) there were closer to 90-100 schools in the FBS at the time of the split. Most AAC and MWC teams were FBS from the start. Only a small number from the other G5 conferences started out as FBS.
nope. back in 78 you had even the Ivy as FBS. They dropped after year 1981.

it really wasn't until 1982 that the number really dropped- to 113.

The number never dropped below 104 teams in 1987 and 1988(both years with the SMU death penalty).

There are 130 teams in the FBS today. 29 of them have been added since 1987. Another, Idaho, moved up in 1996, and subsequently moved back down. The period from 1978 until around 1982 was a transitional period between the decision to subdivide and the ultimate sorting out in which conferences like the Ivy League decided to move down.

Of the 24 schools in C-USA and the Sunbelt, 20 were either new startups or moveups from FCS since 1989. Two more schools, UMass, and Liberty, haven't got a conference home yet.
01-10-2019 10:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 1,648
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 77
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #24
RE: 2018 Final Conference Rankings (Massey Composite)
(01-10-2019 10:04 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-10-2019 03:24 PM)stever20 Wrote:  
(01-10-2019 03:13 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-10-2019 03:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  
(01-10-2019 02:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  The growing gap has less to do with rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and more to do with simply allowing more and more teams into the FBS. The barriers to entry are far too low. Those new FBS schools aren't being added to the top conferences. They are being added at the bottom. The NCAA had it about right when it originally split the division in 1978. If we'd stopped there, we wouldn't be talking about a gap at all.
in 1978, there were 138 teams. so in a lot of ways, we're back to where it was after the split. now there was a thinning of course after that.....

Depending on whether you count the MAC as being FBS (they were initially relegated to FCS, but successfully clawed their way back via a lawsuit) there were closer to 90-100 schools in the FBS at the time of the split. Most AAC and MWC teams were FBS from the start. Only a small number from the other G5 conferences started out as FBS.
nope. back in 78 you had even the Ivy as FBS. They dropped after year 1981.

it really wasn't until 1982 that the number really dropped- to 113.

The number never dropped below 104 teams in 1987 and 1988(both years with the SMU death penalty).

There are 130 teams in the FBS today. 29 of them have been added since 1987. Another, Idaho, moved up in 1996, and subsequently moved back down. The period from 1978 until around 1982 was a transitional period between the decision to subdivide and the ultimate sorting out in which conferences like the Ivy League decided to move down.

Of the 24 schools in C-USA and the Sunbelt, 20 were either new startups or moveups from FCS since 1989. Two more schools, UMass, and Liberty, haven't got a conference home yet.

The Ivy League didn't decide to move down. All the Ivies but Yale were demoted to I-AA. Only Yale actually decided to move down.
01-10-2019 10:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,083
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 457
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #25
RE: 2018 Final Conference Rankings (Massey Composite)
(01-10-2019 10:29 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(01-10-2019 10:04 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-10-2019 03:24 PM)stever20 Wrote:  
(01-10-2019 03:13 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(01-10-2019 03:04 PM)stever20 Wrote:  in 1978, there were 138 teams. so in a lot of ways, we're back to where it was after the split. now there was a thinning of course after that.....

Depending on whether you count the MAC as being FBS (they were initially relegated to FCS, but successfully clawed their way back via a lawsuit) there were closer to 90-100 schools in the FBS at the time of the split. Most AAC and MWC teams were FBS from the start. Only a small number from the other G5 conferences started out as FBS.
nope. back in 78 you had even the Ivy as FBS. They dropped after year 1981.

it really wasn't until 1982 that the number really dropped- to 113.

The number never dropped below 104 teams in 1987 and 1988(both years with the SMU death penalty).

There are 130 teams in the FBS today. 29 of them have been added since 1987. Another, Idaho, moved up in 1996, and subsequently moved back down. The period from 1978 until around 1982 was a transitional period between the decision to subdivide and the ultimate sorting out in which conferences like the Ivy League decided to move down.

Of the 24 schools in C-USA and the Sunbelt, 20 were either new startups or moveups from FCS since 1989. Two more schools, UMass, and Liberty, haven't got a conference home yet.

The Ivy League didn't decide to move down. All the Ivies but Yale were demoted to I-AA. Only Yale actually decided to move down.

We could debate the semantics of how conferences or schools were sorted out between FBS and FCS all day. At the end of the day, though, some accepted relegation and others (like MAC schools) fought it through the courts (or threat of lawsuits). The split occurred in the first place because there was some recognition that not all football playing schools were equal, and they shouldn't be competing regularly against clearly inferior or superior teams.

We could have gone either way since that initial recognition was formalized as a D-I subdivision. We could have further reduced the size of the top level, or we could have allowed it to expand. There being a lot more schools with inferior resources than with superior ones, the NCAA allowed the latter.

Politics and egos have always been a major part of this process. The NCAA members could have decided to call FBS Division I and FCS Division II. But who doesn't want to be considered a part of the top division? Especially if the cost of doing so is minimal. Too many schools want to be able to say we play in the big boy league, even though they really don't belong there.

Around the same time as the subdivision occurred, another sea change was emerging in college sports - the rise of all sports cable channels. Ultimately that took what was mainly a regional sport and made it national, because that's the way to make the business of sport more profitable. The massive infusion of money from outside sources like ESPN have taken control of college football away from the schools. Football is no longer just the "front porch" to the university. It's a separate business, with its own mission.

The presidents of D-I univerities are still struggling to exercise control over football (and men's basketball as well). But they are fighting a losing battle. Entertainment and sports have always been valued more highly by the masses than education. That's not only likely to be true in the future, it is even more likely to be the case. The perceived value of a college education is shrinking at an alarming rate.

In the next 20 years, many universities are going to fail, and close their doors. Perhaps part of the motivation to increase emphasis on football is to avoid becoming one of those failed schools.
01-11-2019 08:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2019 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, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.