Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Should the Sun Belt & C-USA form an alliance or partnership to help both leagues?
Author Message
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,329
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 128
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #121
RE: Should the Sun Belt & C-USA form an alliance or partnership to help both leagues?
(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.
(This post was last modified: 02-17-2019 01:59 AM by BruceMcF.)
02-17-2019 01:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,167
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 367
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #122
Should the Sun Belt & C-USA form an alliance or partnership to help both leagues?
The End

Now let's do this again in 4 to 6 weeks.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
02-17-2019 09:04 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,052
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 688
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #123
RE: Should the Sun Belt & C-USA form an alliance or partnership to help both leagues?
(02-15-2019 05:40 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(02-15-2019 04:55 PM)panama Wrote:  
(02-15-2019 04:19 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(02-15-2019 11:04 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  
(02-13-2019 09:52 PM)USM@FTL Wrote:  No no no. Merge into one conference. Divide into palatable/geographic/political divisions of 6. Consolidate. Control FBS membership from the bottom. Raise the bar for newbies. Stay at 130 for a while. Let our brand names spread a little more.

You can't easily toss schools aside/out. Bad politics. Takes too long anyway. Adding schools, however, is fairly easy. Consuming the entire Sunbelt, warts and all, would let us sort it out correctly. That would also be 'good' politics.
Think about:
West: Rice, UTEP, UTSA, UNT, Ark State, TSU
SE: La Tech, ULaLa, USM, UAB, FAU, FIU
NE: App State, MTSU, WKU, Charlotte, ODU, Marshall
Sun: GSU,GStU, USA, Troy, CCU, ULaMo
You might switch CCU with App State depending on politics. TSU might get pushed to the Sun as well.

You would need 4-team playoff to crown a champion, but I still think that's doable legislation and it might prompt the SEC or B1G to start the dominos again. A 24-member C-USA would be insulated from those dominos. There would be strength in those numbers. I also like our chances for getting at-large bids to replace the automatic one we'd lose by merging.

I like this. Combine what another poster said earlier, abolish one of the league offices and control it under one roof.

I'd also say, the league office should be in charge of ALL scheduling, conference, bowls AND OOC. I think with more teams, you'd be able to have more leverage in negotiations as a bloc and be able to get your conference members quality home and homes rather than just buy games. Also, the buy games (if you elect to do them) could be leveraged for higher payouts / better terms.

A problem occurs when you consider the CFP payout. It's capped at 12 shares per conference. How do you manage having 24 teams under one roof? Then, who's tv deal takes center stage?

Very simple. You remain two different conferences. Just because you consolidate under one commissioner, one league office, one TV deal, one supervisor of officials doesn't mean you have to become one conference as long as each conference meets the schedule requirements to have a championship game and auto bids.

You can't play a 12 game schedule and have a four-team playoff for football as suggested by USM@FTL

But let's say someone does the vaunted SBC/CUSA mashup. You still have a Sun Belt and you still have a CUSA.

For the moment let's say there are no line up changes but the administrative consolidation takes place

In football you do this.
Each school plays a full round robin in their division. CUSA teams would play six divisional games and Sun Belt four.
CUSA teams would then play two more vs teams in Sun Belt in lieu of conference games. Sun Belt teams would play a mix of CUSA and other division Sun Belt teams to get 8 games scheduled by the league office. None of these crossovers count toward the conference standings.

The two Sun Belt division champs meet for the Sun Belt title, the two CUSA meet for the CUSA title.

In basketball to be eligible for an autobid you have to play EITHER a full double round robing OR 14 games. So let's have the league schedule 6 more games.

A Sun Belt team would play some mix of 14 Sun Belt teams and then six more games against CUSA that don't count toward the standings and CUSA would play 14 CUSA games (enough for a single round robin and one rival twice) and 6 Sun Belt. If you want, front load the 14 games and then use the floating pod system each is adopting to assign the last six games insuring the top RPI teams only face each other down the stretch regardless of conference.
Ummm[Image: 0a28764218c086d0c82c0f517da51b13.gif]

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Yeah I'm out too. Let's just keep it how it is and see what happens.

The two of the schools that would gain the greatest benefit. 07-coffee3
02-17-2019 01:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 23,052
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 688
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #124
RE: Should the Sun Belt & C-USA form an alliance or partnership to help both leagues?
(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.
02-17-2019 01:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Yosef Himself Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,612
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 70
I Root For: App State
Location:
Post: #125
RE: Should the Sun Belt & C-USA form an alliance or partnership to help both leagues?
A scheduling agreement could be made between Eastern and Western divisions of the SBC/CUSA to build up OOC rivalries and also a pre CCG OOC game between the four best SBC/CUSA teams to try and get a better chance at earning an Access Bowl bid without having to wreck the conferences.
02-17-2019 02:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Side Show Joe Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,154
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 245
I Root For: North Texas
Location: TEXAS
Post: #126
RE: Should the Sun Belt & C-USA form an alliance or partnership to help both leagues?
(02-17-2019 02:07 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote:  A scheduling agreement could be made between Eastern and Western divisions of the SBC/CUSA to build up OOC rivalries and also a pre CCG OOC game between the four best SBC/CUSA teams to try and get a better chance at earning an Access Bowl bid without having to wreck the conferences.

No. That would not align with UNT's current scheduling philosophy (a P5 home & home, 2 home & homes from the AAC/MWC/MAC/SB, and a buy a win home FCS game). I'd like to see the other programs in C-USA schedule more like North Texas. What you are proposing would weaken C-USA.
(This post was last modified: 02-17-2019 03:09 PM by Side Show Joe.)
02-17-2019 02:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,167
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 367
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #127
RE: Should the Sun Belt & C-USA form an alliance or partnership to help both leagues?
(02-17-2019 01:48 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(02-15-2019 05:40 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(02-15-2019 04:55 PM)panama Wrote:  
(02-15-2019 04:19 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(02-15-2019 11:04 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  I like this. Combine what another poster said earlier, abolish one of the league offices and control it under one roof.

I'd also say, the league office should be in charge of ALL scheduling, conference, bowls AND OOC. I think with more teams, you'd be able to have more leverage in negotiations as a bloc and be able to get your conference members quality home and homes rather than just buy games. Also, the buy games (if you elect to do them) could be leveraged for higher payouts / better terms.

A problem occurs when you consider the CFP payout. It's capped at 12 shares per conference. How do you manage having 24 teams under one roof? Then, who's tv deal takes center stage?

Very simple. You remain two different conferences. Just because you consolidate under one commissioner, one league office, one TV deal, one supervisor of officials doesn't mean you have to become one conference as long as each conference meets the schedule requirements to have a championship game and auto bids.

You can't play a 12 game schedule and have a four-team playoff for football as suggested by USM@FTL

But let's say someone does the vaunted SBC/CUSA mashup. You still have a Sun Belt and you still have a CUSA.

For the moment let's say there are no line up changes but the administrative consolidation takes place

In football you do this.
Each school plays a full round robin in their division. CUSA teams would play six divisional games and Sun Belt four.
CUSA teams would then play two more vs teams in Sun Belt in lieu of conference games. Sun Belt teams would play a mix of CUSA and other division Sun Belt teams to get 8 games scheduled by the league office. None of these crossovers count toward the conference standings.

The two Sun Belt division champs meet for the Sun Belt title, the two CUSA meet for the CUSA title.

In basketball to be eligible for an autobid you have to play EITHER a full double round robing OR 14 games. So let's have the league schedule 6 more games.

A Sun Belt team would play some mix of 14 Sun Belt teams and then six more games against CUSA that don't count toward the standings and CUSA would play 14 CUSA games (enough for a single round robin and one rival twice) and 6 Sun Belt. If you want, front load the 14 games and then use the floating pod system each is adopting to assign the last six games insuring the top RPI teams only face each other down the stretch regardless of conference.
Ummm[Image: 0a28764218c086d0c82c0f517da51b13.gif]

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Yeah I'm out too. Let's just keep it how it is and see what happens.

The two of the schools that would gain the greatest benefit. 07-coffee3
Short of joining the AAC nothing changes for us.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
(This post was last modified: 02-17-2019 07:47 PM by panama.)
02-17-2019 06:44 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,543
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 139
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #128
RE: Should the Sun Belt & C-USA form an alliance or partnership to help both leagues?
(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.
Yesterday 08:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,819
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 61
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #129
RE: Should the Sun Belt & C-USA form an alliance or partnership to help both leagues?
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
Yesterday 10:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,167
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 367
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #130
RE: Should the Sun Belt & C-USA form an alliance or partnership to help both leagues?
(Yesterday 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
UAB is the closest G5 to us. We should play in all sports.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Yesterday 10:29 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
debragga Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 480
Joined: Nov 2017
Reputation: 12
I Root For: ULM
Location:
Post: #131
RE: Should the Sun Belt & C-USA form an alliance or partnership to help both leagues?
(Yesterday 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.

[Image: tenor.gif]
Yesterday 10:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,819
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 61
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #132
RE: Should the Sun Belt & C-USA form an alliance or partnership to help both leagues?
(Yesterday 10:29 AM)panama Wrote:  
(Yesterday 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
UAB is the closest G5 to us. We should play in all sports.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

UAB is pretty centrally located. GA St is another school that would make sense to have in their rotation.
Yesterday 10:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,543
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 139
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #133
RE: Should the Sun Belt & C-USA form an alliance or partnership to help both leagues?
(Yesterday 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

Arkansas State:Memphis
Missouri State would be a bus trip for Arkansas State as well.

Texas State:UTEP, UTSA, North Texas, SMU
Yesterday 10:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TrueBlueDrew Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,152
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 167
I Root For: GeorgiaSouthern
Location: Eagle Nation
Post: #134
RE: Should the Sun Belt & C-USA form an alliance or partnership to help both leagues?
You could even have groups from each conference play in an OOC rotation and it would work out better than a complete SBC/CUSA flip around.

App State, Ga State, Troy vs. UNCC, MTSU, UAB on a rotation

FIU, FAU, ODU vs. Ga Southern, Coastal (would be great to have ECU involved to round out the numbers). Call it the East Coast Clash or the 95-Drive to hype up the fans.
Yesterday 11:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
NCR Ranger
*

Posts: 2,944
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 77
I Root For: p-natal vitamin
Location: prenatal vitamins
Post: #135
RE: Should the Sun Belt & C-USA form an alliance or partnership to help both leagues?
(Yesterday 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.
Yesterday 12:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DavidSt Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,543
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 139
I Root For: ATU, P7
Location:
Post: #136
RE: Should the Sun Belt & C-USA form an alliance or partnership to help both leagues?
(Yesterday 12:34 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(Yesterday 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.


I know Southern Conference is already D1, but they have a long history playing in Bowl games. I meant them and MVC could make a case for their inclusing to be FBS.
Yesterday 12:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Yosef Himself Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,612
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 70
I Root For: App State
Location:
Post: #137
RE: Should the Sun Belt & C-USA form an alliance or partnership to help both leagues?
Quote: know Southern Conference is already D1, but they have a long history playing in Bowl games. I meant them and MVC could make a case for their inclusing to be FBS.


There's no desire from the SoCon teams to move into FBS. Wofford/Furman/Mercer/Samford/VMI/Citadel are all small schools. UTC and ETSU don't have the money or alumni support.
Yesterday 12:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
49RFootballNow Online
He who walks without rhythm
*

Posts: 7,914
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation: 484
I Root For: Charlotte 49ers
Location: Metrolina
Post: #138
RE: Should the Sun Belt & C-USA form an alliance or partnership to help both leagues?
This one is still going, huh?

I'll just.....04-bolt
(This post was last modified: Yesterday 02:21 PM by 49RFootballNow.)
Yesterday 02:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 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.