(02-18-2019 10:20 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If a membership rearrangement won't happen it would be nice to see some of the C-USA and SBC schools lock into some permanent rivalry games with nearby programs:

App St vs Charlotte
UAB vs Troy
UAB vs USA
USA vs USM
Ark St vs MTSU
Ark St vs LA Tech
ULL vs LA Tech
Texas St vs UTSA
UTEP vs Texas St

It makes far more sense to play schools OOC that you can bus to rather than flying to MWC or MAC schools.

There are certainly schools in both leagues that have other schools outside of the two leagues that would be closer that they might prefer over a locked in deal arranged by the conference front office:

UTEP: NMSU, UNM
WKU & Marshall: MAC schools
ODU: ECU & Liberty
FAU & FIU: UCF & USF
UNT: SMU

North Texas already plays SMU. We are in the middle of a 10 year series. And, the series is an example of a good local OOC series.

Some local match-ups make sense, and some don't. AD's have to determine whether or not the games advance their particular program. If it doesn't, than a local OOC game is just a quick fix meant to prop up poor attendance numbers, and does nothing to address the larger problem.

A good AD will build the fan base and schedule the best possible opponents, regardless of their proximity, and fill the stands with the home fan base, not rely on the visiting team's fans to show up.

(02-19-2019 04:30 PM)No Bull Wrote:  This could work. Hear me out.

First U form PODS.

4 teams in each POD.

Teams play opponents from alternate pods every other year (except for leap years)

You set up neutral site games in Shreveport MS and Columbia SC alternating between the champions and runner-ups of the the Sun Belt and CUSA.




OT: seek out streaming services like Facebook or Youtube TV for next tv deal... and then....

Where?

(02-19-2019 07:16 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 10:20 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If a membership rearrangement won't happen it would be nice to see some of the C-USA and SBC schools lock into some permanent rivalry games with nearby programs:

App St vs Charlotte
UAB vs Troy
UAB vs USA
USA vs USM
Ark St vs MTSU
Ark St vs LA Tech
ULL vs LA Tech
Texas St vs UTSA
UTEP vs Texas St

It makes far more sense to play schools OOC that you can bus to rather than flying to MWC or MAC schools.

There are certainly schools in both leagues that have other schools outside of the two leagues that would be closer that they might prefer over a locked in deal arranged by the conference front office:

UTEP: NMSU, UNM
WKU & Marshall: MAC schools
ODU: ECU & Liberty
FAU & FIU: UCF & USF
UNT: SMU

North Texas already plays SMU. We are in the middle of a 10 year series. And, the series is an example of a good local OOC series.

Some local match-ups make sense, and some don't. AD's have to determine whether or not the games advance their particular program. If it doesn't, than a local OOC game is just a quick fix meant to prop up poor attendance numbers, and does nothing to address the larger problem.

A good AD will build the fan base and schedule the best possible opponents, regardless of their proximity, and fill the stands with the home fan base, not rely on the visiting team's fans to show up.

UTEP likes playing MWC schools. Nevada, UNLV, Boise State and New Mexico are on the schedule. Colorado State was a home and home a few years ago. NMSU is an annual game, UNM is a school the fans like to see on the schedule more often. If UTEP is going to be stuck in a Southern based conference, it might as well play its peers in the Mountain and Pacific time zones. Playing Sun Belt schools except for Texas State does not do anything for UTEP since it already plays in Florida, Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, West Virginia, North Carolina and Virginia. I’m sure the feeling is mutual. What really Arkansas State or Georgia State gain in playing UTEP? Not much.

(02-17-2019 01:59 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-17-2019 01:50 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 01:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Forget about some huge swap of schools that isn't going to happen.

If what these schools really want is to save money, they would have one conference office administer both conferences and each conference could cut its overhead almost in half. Each school would get a few hundred thousand more each year due to less money being skimmed off the top for conference overhead.

There you go ... hoping that "Alliance or Partnership" in the thread title meant something like this is why I clicked on the thread, only to find another of the unending series of CUSA/SBC reshuffle threads.

(02-17-2019 12:48 AM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  unless at-large bids are on the table for the new league, I just don't see the point.

This is part of why this never would work in the real world as it is imagined in the latest reshuffle set out ...

(1) A regional reshuffle between the two won't ever give an alignment that makes 2/3 of each conference happy to do the change, so it's not on the table. If it could, it would already have happened.

(2) A tiered reshuffle between the two won't ever get the schools relegated to the lower tier to support it, so won't ever get an alignment that makes 2/3 of each conference happy.

(3) An "airport meeting" breakaway to build an upper tier above both the existing CUSA and SBC can't happen because the MWC airport meeting happened, and the NCAA sat down and figured out how to revise the Tourney autobid qualification rule (aka "continuity") to avoid dangling the incentive for one to happen again, so that supposed "upper tier" would be relying on at-large bids to get their champion to the Tourney, for eight years AFAIR. And it couldn't be part of the CFP contract until the next CFP contract negotiation, so would be relying on (even more unlikely) at-large bids for the NY6 as well.

The problem for the NCAA (and lesser degree CFP) is that you are correct. The NCAA did design the process to stifle competition and innovation. It provides a massive competitive advantage to a conference that currently exists over a conference members might like to form and gives preference to an older conference where members do the bare minimum to meet Division I standards over a new conference that is comprised schools with a longer history in Division I and make larger investments in competitive athletics.

Continuity is not designed to help consumers but rather to make it difficult for institutions to align in the manner that best suits a member institution and denies consumers variety of choices. Under the automatic bid rules a conference that has never won a game in the NCAA Tournament is more deserving of an auto bid than a conference starting its first year and all members won a tournament game the prior year.

I have my doubts the auto bid continuity rules survive an anti-trust challenge.

Thats what Im thinking. There is no real reason for the rule other than to discourage the formation of new conferences (which is basically a rule to prevent competition). I think the fix is fairly simple. Give 'em their autobid--but expand the play in round. Those low end teams that are just gaming the system by creating conferences just to get autobids will end up in an expanded play in round and will largely be gone by the time the traditional 64 teams bracket begins play. Essentially, seeding will prevent the issue from having any real affect on the final product. There is little down side to a few more play in games. Just more games to bet on....well---it will make the perfect bracket even harder to fill out.

(02-19-2019 07:40 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 07:16 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 10:20 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If a membership rearrangement won't happen it would be nice to see some of the C-USA and SBC schools lock into some permanent rivalry games with nearby programs:

App St vs Charlotte
UAB vs Troy
UAB vs USA
USA vs USM
Ark St vs MTSU
Ark St vs LA Tech
ULL vs LA Tech
Texas St vs UTSA
UTEP vs Texas St

It makes far more sense to play schools OOC that you can bus to rather than flying to MWC or MAC schools.

There are certainly schools in both leagues that have other schools outside of the two leagues that would be closer that they might prefer over a locked in deal arranged by the conference front office:

UTEP: NMSU, UNM
WKU & Marshall: MAC schools
ODU: ECU & Liberty
FAU & FIU: UCF & USF
UNT: SMU

North Texas already plays SMU. We are in the middle of a 10 year series. And, the series is an example of a good local OOC series.

Some local match-ups make sense, and some don't. AD's have to determine whether or not the games advance their particular program. If it doesn't, than a local OOC game is just a quick fix meant to prop up poor attendance numbers, and does nothing to address the larger problem.

A good AD will build the fan base and schedule the best possible opponents, regardless of their proximity, and fill the stands with the home fan base, not rely on the visiting team's fans to show up.

UTEP likes playing MWC schools. Nevada, UNLV, Boise State and New Mexico are on the schedule. Colorado State was a home and home a few years ago. NMSU is an annual game, UNM is a school the fans like to see on the schedule more often. If UTEP is going to be stuck in a Southern based conference, it might as well play its peers in the Mountain and Pacific time zones. Playing Sun Belt schools except for Texas State does not do anything for UTEP since it already plays in Florida, Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, West Virginia, North Carolina and Virginia. I’m sure the feeling is mutual. What really Arkansas State or Georgia State gain in playing UTEP? Not much.

So, you agree with me? Because I think UTEP is smart to play more MWC programs in their OOC. You are 100% right. UTEP is already playing in the major Texas markets. Playing Texas State wouldn't help progress your program as much as scheduling some teams from the MWC or landing a home and home with a P5.

UTEP's OOC schedules should include UNM, NMSU, and Texas St--all places they can bus to.

As a C-USA/SBC geographic outlier they are one of the schools who are better off not being locked into a bunch of cross conference games.

(02-19-2019 07:40 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 07:16 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 10:20 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If a membership rearrangement won't happen it would be nice to see some of the C-USA and SBC schools lock into some permanent rivalry games with nearby programs:

App St vs Charlotte
UAB vs Troy
UAB vs USA
USA vs USM
Ark St vs MTSU
Ark St vs LA Tech
ULL vs LA Tech
Texas St vs UTSA
UTEP vs Texas St

It makes far more sense to play schools OOC that you can bus to rather than flying to MWC or MAC schools.

There are certainly schools in both leagues that have other schools outside of the two leagues that would be closer that they might prefer over a locked in deal arranged by the conference front office:

UTEP: NMSU, UNM
WKU & Marshall: MAC schools
ODU: ECU & Liberty
FAU & FIU: UCF & USF
UNT: SMU

North Texas already plays SMU. We are in the middle of a 10 year series. And, the series is an example of a good local OOC series.

Some local match-ups make sense, and some don't. AD's have to determine whether or not the games advance their particular program. If it doesn't, than a local OOC game is just a quick fix meant to prop up poor attendance numbers, and does nothing to address the larger problem.

A good AD will build the fan base and schedule the best possible opponents, regardless of their proximity, and fill the stands with the home fan base, not rely on the visiting team's fans to show up.

UTEP likes playing MWC schools. Nevada, UNLV, Boise State and New Mexico are on the schedule. Colorado State was a home and home a few years ago. NMSU is an annual game, UNM is a school the fans like to see on the schedule more often. If UTEP is going to be stuck in a Southern based conference, it might as well play its peers in the Mountain and Pacific time zones. Playing Sun Belt schools except for Texas State does not do anything for UTEP since it already plays in Florida, Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, West Virginia, North Carolina and Virginia. I’m sure the feeling is mutual. What really Arkansas State or Georgia State gain in playing UTEP? Not much.

So in UTEP's case.. May I be bold enough to suggest PODS?

(02-18-2019 10:20 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If a membership rearrangement won't happen it would be nice to see some of the C-USA and SBC schools lock into some permanent rivalry games with nearby programs:

App St vs Charlotte
UAB vs Troy
UAB vs USA
USA vs USM
Ark St vs MTSU
Ark St vs LA Tech
ULL vs LA Tech
Texas St vs UTSA
UTEP vs Texas St

It makes far more sense to play schools OOC that you can bus to rather than flying to MWC or MAC schools.

There are certainly schools in both leagues that have other schools outside of the two leagues that would be closer that they might prefer over a locked in deal arranged by the conference front office:

UTEP: NMSU, UNM
WKU & Marshall: MAC schools
ODU: ECU & Liberty
FAU & FIU: UCF & USF
UNT: SMU

Rice has a semi-permanent game with Houston. And our coming OOCs include nearby schools like Texas, LSU, Baylor, and ULL.

(02-19-2019 08:39 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 07:40 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(02-19-2019 07:16 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 10:20 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If a membership rearrangement won't happen it would be nice to see some of the C-USA and SBC schools lock into some permanent rivalry games with nearby programs:

App St vs Charlotte
UAB vs Troy
UAB vs USA
USA vs USM
Ark St vs MTSU
Ark St vs LA Tech
ULL vs LA Tech
Texas St vs UTSA
UTEP vs Texas St

It makes far more sense to play schools OOC that you can bus to rather than flying to MWC or MAC schools.

There are certainly schools in both leagues that have other schools outside of the two leagues that would be closer that they might prefer over a locked in deal arranged by the conference front office:

UTEP: NMSU, UNM
WKU & Marshall: MAC schools
ODU: ECU & Liberty
FAU & FIU: UCF & USF
UNT: SMU

North Texas already plays SMU. We are in the middle of a 10 year series. And, the series is an example of a good local OOC series.

Some local match-ups make sense, and some don't. AD's have to determine whether or not the games advance their particular program. If it doesn't, than a local OOC game is just a quick fix meant to prop up poor attendance numbers, and does nothing to address the larger problem.

A good AD will build the fan base and schedule the best possible opponents, regardless of their proximity, and fill the stands with the home fan base, not rely on the visiting team's fans to show up.

UTEP likes playing MWC schools. Nevada, UNLV, Boise State and New Mexico are on the schedule. Colorado State was a home and home a few years ago. NMSU is an annual game, UNM is a school the fans like to see on the schedule more often. If UTEP is going to be stuck in a Southern based conference, it might as well play its peers in the Mountain and Pacific time zones. Playing Sun Belt schools except for Texas State does not do anything for UTEP since it already plays in Florida, Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, West Virginia, North Carolina and Virginia. I’m sure the feeling is mutual. What really Arkansas State or Georgia State gain in playing UTEP? Not much.

So, you agree with me? Because I think UTEP is smart to play more MWC programs in their OOC. You are 100% right. UTEP is already playing in the major Texas markets. Playing Texas State wouldn't help progress your program as much as scheduling some teams from the MWC or landing a home and home with a P5.

I think UTEP wants the best of both. Playing in C-USA for Texas and Eastern Time exposure and MWC schools to keep in touch with our former conference mates. An alliance with the Sun Belt wouldn’t work for us. But I’d rather play SBC and MAC schools rather than FCS schools. Hopefully the new AD will get rid of those.

(02-18-2019 12:34 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(02-18-2019 08:44 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(02-17-2019 01:59 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-17-2019 01:50 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(02-12-2019 01:26 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Forget about some huge swap of schools that isn't going to happen.

If what these schools really want is to save money, they would have one conference office administer both conferences and each conference could cut its overhead almost in half. Each school would get a few hundred thousand more each year due to less money being skimmed off the top for conference overhead.

There you go ... hoping that "Alliance or Partnership" in the thread title meant something like this is why I clicked on the thread, only to find another of the unending series of CUSA/SBC reshuffle threads.

(02-17-2019 12:48 AM)GSUALUM17 Wrote:  unless at-large bids are on the table for the new league, I just don't see the point.

This is part of why this never would work in the real world as it is imagined in the latest reshuffle set out ...

(1) A regional reshuffle between the two won't ever give an alignment that makes 2/3 of each conference happy to do the change, so it's not on the table. If it could, it would already have happened.

(2) A tiered reshuffle between the two won't ever get the schools relegated to the lower tier to support it, so won't ever get an alignment that makes 2/3 of each conference happy.

(3) An "airport meeting" breakaway to build an upper tier above both the existing CUSA and SBC can't happen because the MWC airport meeting happened, and the NCAA sat down and figured out how to revise the Tourney autobid qualification rule (aka "continuity") to avoid dangling the incentive for one to happen again, so that supposed "upper tier" would be relying on at-large bids to get their champion to the Tourney, for eight years AFAIR. And it couldn't be part of the CFP contract until the next CFP contract negotiation, so would be relying on (even more unlikely) at-large bids for the NY6 as well.

The problem for the NCAA (and lesser degree CFP) is that you are correct. The NCAA did design the process to stifle competition and innovation. It provides a massive competitive advantage to a conference that currently exists over a conference members might like to form and gives preference to an older conference where members do the bare minimum to meet Division I standards over a new conference that is comprised schools with a longer history in Division I and make larger investments in competitive athletics.

Continuity is not designed to help consumers but rather to make it difficult for institutions to align in the manner that best suits a member institution and denies consumers variety of choices. Under the automatic bid rules a conference that has never won a game in the NCAA Tournament is more deserving of an auto bid than a conference starting its first year and all members won a tournament game the prior year.

I have my doubts the auto bid continuity rules survive an anti-trust challenge.

The real question would be is old defunct conferences reformed with old members? The rules seemed to address old conferences if they reformed.

American South Conference could reform with Lamar and UTRGV to reformed an all sports conference and try to get that as an FBS conference with New Mexico State. All you need is more schools involved. They could get UTA to join if they start football. New Orleans was a former member, and was supposed to have started a football program in 2015, but got delayed. American South Conference could be a home for rejects like La.-Monroe.

Border Conference could restart with New Mexico State, Northern Arizona, West Texas A&M, Hardin-Simmons and get UTRGV, Dixie State, Lamar and others for an all sports FBS conference.

East Coast Conference is another which east coast schools could be part of if they want FBS or an all sports FCS.
Delaware
James Madison
Towson
Elon
Stony Brook
Maine
New Hampshire
URI
William & Mary
Richmond
Albany
Villanova
If they all go FBS? Villanova and Richmond go Patriot League and UMass and Liberty join all sports. Former ECC D1 members Gettysberg, Muhlenberg, Brooklyn, and West Chester could join The Patriot League.

Great Midwest Conference
Great West
Gulf Star
Interstate Intercollegiate Athletic Conference
Metropolitan Collegiate Conference
Metropolitan New York Conference
Association of Mid-Continent Universities football
Skyline Conference (Montana, Montana State, Wyoming, Colorado State, Air Force, New Mexico, Idaho, UTEP, Utah State)
New England Conference
Southern_Intercollegiate_Athletic_Association
Southwest Conference
West Virginia Intercollegiate Athletic Conference
Yankee Conference

Maybe some old D2 conferences like RMAC and Lone Star Conference who were listed as major conferences could still have credits when some Big Name FBS programs were members who made post season play.
WVIAC had West Virginia in the conference.

It depends on what the NCAA officials would say, but the rules did not say former D1 conferences can't get left out since they were already on paper as D1. It would be fun to watch schools take NCAA to court on the issue on restarting D1 conferences that were already D1 and had teams played post season. Southern Conference could actually have the biggest case to be an FBS conference again. They had history, and have teams gone to Bowl games in the past.

You might be on to something there DavidSt, but the Southern Conference still exists; it’s just called the SoCon for short. However, the Southwestern Conference is defunct. Hmmm.

American South still exists. It absorbed the Sun Belt and took the Sun Belt name.

(02-09-2019 10:28 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(02-09-2019 08:18 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  

(02-09-2019 07:04 AM)debragga Wrote:  Oh wow, this thread again

Nothing to do with that unless I'm unaware of another Sun Belt/C-USA thread.

It actually gets talked about on hear a lot bit. The general consensus is that it would make a lot of sense to reorganize but those pesky non-football schools and a handful of C-USA schools who have vendettas against a neighboring SBC school (LA Tech) keep it from ever happening.

There's also quite a few SBC fans that are convinced that their league is perfect the way it is and don't see the benefit of associating with the bigger C-USA brands that would be closer to home.

Every SBC fan I know of prefers the ten team set up versus what CUSA has right now but they are all open to the mythical "airport meeting" that would swap teams around for a more logistical and fan friendly lineup. I don't see any "brands" left in CUSA that are bigger than anyone else in the SBC or MAC. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves or living in the past. Typical outsiders lump every single one of us in the same pile.

(02-09-2019 10:48 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Well, people keep forgetting that their are FCS schools in the area that could help boast men's basketball and.football.

Missouri State, Jacksonville State, Chattanooga, East Tennessee State, Northern Iowa, UCA, Sam Houston State, SFAU, James Madison, Murray State, Kennesaw State, Stony Brook and some others. Adding any of them could boast product for tv on how they played on the court and football fields. Streaming online would also add more money.

No to all of those unless it was necessary to survive.

Let me explain my POD concept.

After a team faces the top 6 geographic closest teams in the (Sun Belt or CUSA) conference once. the teams will be separated into 5 different pods -- 1-5, 6-10, 11-14, 15-19, 20-24. The final four conference contests for each will be against others in their respective pods, two home and two away.

(02-21-2019 12:57 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(02-09-2019 10:28 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(02-09-2019 08:18 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  

(02-09-2019 07:04 AM)debragga Wrote:  Oh wow, this thread again

Nothing to do with that unless I'm unaware of another Sun Belt/C-USA thread.

It actually gets talked about on hear a lot bit. The general consensus is that it would make a lot of sense to reorganize but those pesky non-football schools and a handful of C-USA schools who have vendettas against a neighboring SBC school (LA Tech) keep it from ever happening.

There's also quite a few SBC fans that are convinced that their league is perfect the way it is and don't see the benefit of associating with the bigger C-USA brands that would be closer to home.

Every SBC fan I know of prefers the ten team set up versus what CUSA has right now but they are all open to the mythical "airport meeting" that would swap teams around for a more logistical and fan friendly lineup. I don't see any "brands" left in CUSA that are bigger than anyone else in the SBC or MAC. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves or living in the past. Typical outsiders lump every single one of us in the same pile.

10 of the 14 are recent startups or former Sun Belt schools or both. Rice and UTEP are brands, but not in football. That leaves Marshall and USM.

The only practical, possible way to rearrange is to expand/merge and re-split. Before you can merge, you have to secure a 4-team playoff to handle the numbers.

(02-21-2019 08:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 12:57 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(02-09-2019 10:28 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(02-09-2019 08:18 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  

(02-09-2019 07:04 AM)debragga Wrote:  Oh wow, this thread again

Nothing to do with that unless I'm unaware of another Sun Belt/C-USA thread.

It actually gets talked about on hear a lot bit. The general consensus is that it would make a lot of sense to reorganize but those pesky non-football schools and a handful of C-USA schools who have vendettas against a neighboring SBC school (LA Tech) keep it from ever happening.

There's also quite a few SBC fans that are convinced that their league is perfect the way it is and don't see the benefit of associating with the bigger C-USA brands that would be closer to home.

Every SBC fan I know of prefers the ten team set up versus what CUSA has right now but they are all open to the mythical "airport meeting" that would swap teams around for a more logistical and fan friendly lineup. I don't see any "brands" left in CUSA that are bigger than anyone else in the SBC or MAC. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves or living in the past. Typical outsiders lump every single one of us in the same pile.

10 of the 14 are recent startups or former Sun Belt schools or both. Rice and UTEP are brands, but not in football. That leaves Marshall and USM.

Precisely. USM just hired the OC that Arkansas State fired and they are not what they were ten years ago. Marshall doesn't have anything to hang it's hat on in recent years that would stand out from their peers either.

(02-22-2019 10:12 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 08:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-21-2019 12:57 PM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(02-09-2019 10:28 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(02-09-2019 08:18 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  Nothing to do with that unless I'm unaware of another Sun Belt/C-USA thread.

It actually gets talked about on hear a lot bit. The general consensus is that it would make a lot of sense to reorganize but those pesky non-football schools and a handful of C-USA schools who have vendettas against a neighboring SBC school (LA Tech) keep it from ever happening.

There's also quite a few SBC fans that are convinced that their league is perfect the way it is and don't see the benefit of associating with the bigger C-USA brands that would be closer to home.

Every SBC fan I know of prefers the ten team set up versus what CUSA has right now but they are all open to the mythical "airport meeting" that would swap teams around for a more logistical and fan friendly lineup. I don't see any "brands" left in CUSA that are bigger than anyone else in the SBC or MAC. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves or living in the past. Typical outsiders lump every single one of us in the same pile.

10 of the 14 are recent startups or former Sun Belt schools or both. Rice and UTEP are brands, but not in football. That leaves Marshall and USM.

Precisely. USM just hired the OC that Arkansas State fired and they are not what they were ten years ago. Marshall doesn't have anything to hang it's hat on in recent years that would stand out from their peers either.

2014 team finished in the Top 25 at 13-1, won 10 in 2013 and 2015 but 12-12 in CUSA since then.

C-USA and SBC play FCS teams that seems to play a lot of FBS teams in recent years.
Missouri State
Lamar
McNeese State
Sam Houston State
SFAU
NW La. State
SE LA.
Nicholls State
Chattanooga
Tenn. State
East Tennessee State
Jacksonville State
Mercer
Kennesaw State
Youngstown State
Charleston Southern
James Madison
Towson
UCA

The reason is that they are closer games for many schools. Northern Arizona is another. Several schools are mainly on an island. Arkansas State closest competitors are Missouri State and UCA. Southern Mississippi is a little further out. Even SE Missouri State is closer to Arkansas State. I just do not know how a reshuffle would work when some schools are not that close to some schools.

(02-22-2019 01:48 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  C-USA and SBC play FCS teams that seems to play a lot of FBS teams in recent years.
Missouri State
Lamar
McNeese State
Sam Houston State
SFAU
NW La. State
SE LA.
Nicholls State
Chattanooga
Tenn. State
East Tennessee State
Jacksonville State
Mercer
Kennesaw State
Youngstown State
Charleston Southern
James Madison
Towson
UCA

The reason is that they are closer games for many schools. Northern Arizona is another. Several schools are mainly on an island. Arkansas State closest competitors are Missouri State and UCA. Southern Mississippi is a little further out. Even SE Missouri State is closer to Arkansas State. I just do not know how a reshuffle would work when some schools are not that close to some schools.

Ummm...

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(02-22-2019 10:12 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  Marshall doesn't have anything to hang it's hat on in recent years that would stand out from their peers either.

Marshall just yesterday announced a new $22 million on campus baseball stadium to open March 2021. We won a bowl game and an NCAA Tournament game in the past athletic year, the only non-P5 conference schools to have accomplished that last year. And we did become the G5 program with the most all-time bowl wins this year, in addition to currently having the nation's longest bowl win streak of all teams, period. And we are the second winningest G5 program behind since the start of the BCS era... and we should be back in contention for the G5 autobid the next two years.

Not really accurate to say we don't have a lot to hang our hats on right now. Marshall is still generate organic revenue at a "healthy" rate right now...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py1l0cPO...u.be&t=349