(01-22-2020 08:10 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Btw - BYU needs to get into therapy and come to terms with the fact that they're not P5 program. Until they do that there's really no reason to consider them.

BYU is a P5 program, just not with the Big XII or PAC-12... So perhaps tat therapy should be geared towards P6?

(01-22-2020 10:31 AM)GoOwls111 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 08:10 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Btw - BYU needs to get into therapy and come to terms with the fact that they're not P5 program. Until they do that there's really no reason to consider them.

BYU is a P5 program, just not with the Big XII or PAC-12... So perhaps tat therapy should be geared towards P6?

One of the best things about our country is freedom of choice. This applies to CFB, as much as to anything else. The ability of certain universities to function as independents is something to be proud of.

There have always been a number of independent schools, and hopefully, there always will be.

BYU, like ND, and like Army, has certain unique qualities and traditions. It's great that they are able to maintain those traditions, and to thrive while doing so. If they can do so successfully, without being part of a conference, kudos to them.

Looks like a bunch of dead weight

(01-22-2020 08:49 AM)panama Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 03:08 AM)Fishpro10987 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 12:53 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  I like Boise by themselves for FB only.
ESPN gonna have to come with money for it to work

The money is already there:

Yearly breakdown.
Savings from UCONN's share $6.9 Million
Savings from not funding the MWC media contract (current) $12.0 million
Savings from not funding Boise's special deal (current) $2.8 million

There is $21.7 million ESPN has to play with.

The other question is what was ESPN willing to pay the MWC if they did submit a bid? Let's say $2 million per team or $24 million and an additional $3million for Boise. That is a minimum of $12 more million, or $33.7 million media rights budget.

The issue is Boise is such a geographic outlier by itself, but if you fold in two more MWC teams at our current rate 6.9 million (all sports) to create a western wing costing $26.7 million per year. Then you say to the AAC, we (ESPN) will kick in $7 million per year for the league to disperse to cover the excess travel demands of the schools from their current costs, keeping in mind that a western pod keeps all the Olympics (except basketball) in their own regions until it is time for a conference title (I.e. volleyball, etc...).

Now you have a chance to keep the new teams in for all sports, soften the travel expenses compared against current costs, erode the MWC value so that Fox overpays and lets AAC become the dominant 6th conference. Will it happen? I think it depends on how attractive this looks to 3 MWC schools who would consider bolting. Two are getting $3.9 million in the new deal and one is getting $5.8 million. Eastern exposure, better start times for MWC games. and institutional profile all come in to play here. ESPN gets western exposure with the best MWC schools and markets. If it happens, BYU suddenly becomes left out of P6 conference opportunity. There is slippery ice out there. AAC is in drivers seat. The phone has to ring in Providence though. Aresco is not going to try to be disruptive on his own. He has said as much before.

This is some fishing expedition. The thing is you guys have been to this lake repeatedly only to find out its a retention pond. Surely this has been floated past Presidents at least once , and yet...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Haha. It's what I do best.

My only question is...why is Boise matched with UCF for its #3, rather than any of the Western block? Same with CSU and USF. Those don't really make sense.

Yup. What Jed said.

And, I would add, great beer town.

(01-22-2020 05:13 AM)jedclampett Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 12:05 AM)Shox Wrote:  

(01-21-2020 10:54 PM)panama Wrote:  Someone please explain the CSU love giving the [name any eastern SBC or CUSA school] hate..

*hangs up to listen *

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Simple, you need a bridge to Boise and BYU. In fact, I will go one farther and say that to pull this office you will need AF as well.

1. One word: Colorado.

Colorado is one of the great and most scenic American States. It's prosperous and well educated. It is a major east-west and north-south "keystone" state - sort of the Pennsylvania of the Rocky Mountain region.

2. CSU fits the conference profile as a relatively large, State University, has a solid FB legacy, and is a nationally recognized brand.

3. CSU would extend the conference footprint into the Rocky Mountain region.

4. New stadium/facilities.

5. Classic helmets!



......................................

Not hating C-USA. It's just that few C-USA teams seem to meet the AAC's criteria as stated by Aresco.

The conference could do a lot worse than adding Rice, however. Rice University's main attractions are that (1) they have been in a major power conference (SWC), (2) they're an AAU & R1 institution with outstanding academic credentials, (3) in a large metro area, (4) driving distance to 4 AAC schools, (5) have a large endowment, and (6) both academically and as a former SWC member, they're a nationally recognized brand.

The downsides to Rice are that they wouldn't add a new viewership region their FB would tend to occupy the space vacated by UConn.

Honestly, I think I could get on-board with Colorado State. One thing CSU has in football that no current AAC school has is an annual rivalry game vs a P5 school.

And I'd much rather expand into Colorado (an hour from Denver) than Idaho. Idk why but I also like that the school is 60 years older than Boise State.

Lol.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I am raising my forecast on a Colorado school from 0% to 50%

(01-22-2020 12:14 PM)CoastalJuan Wrote:  My only question is...why is Boise matched with UCF for its #3, rather than any of the Western block? Same with CSU and USF. Those don't really make sense.

Let's see your recommendations for rivals bub. I made the list I want UCF to have the annual eyeball games!

In all honesty I do actually want to see your 14 team arrangement

(01-22-2020 01:58 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  I am raising my forecast on a Colorado school from 0% to 50%

Lol

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(01-22-2020 02:05 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 01:58 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  I am raising my forecast on a Colorado school from 0% to 50%

Lol

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Once again, what do you offer this board besides replying LOL to posts?

(01-22-2020 02:12 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 02:05 PM)panama Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 01:58 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  I am raising my forecast on a Colorado school from 0% to 50%

Lol

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Once again, what do you offer this board besides replying LOL to posts?

I have offered repeatedly that your fishing expedition can only result in a boating accident.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(01-22-2020 08:32 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result.

The original C-USA was intended to be a "National Conference." It proved to be too large, both in members and geography. The "WAC 16" tried to be a "Jumbo Conference." It proved to be too large and too diverse.

Why some of you want to repeat the experiment baffles me. A Conference that stretches from Tampa, FL, to Boise, ID, will not work. Sorry...been there, done that.

Content. Football brands. Competiveness. Boise St is why you would go that far west. We're not talking about San Jose St. or any other flub from the G4. The BIG stretches from New Jersey to Nebraska. They have the money to do pretty much want they want but it works from a "national conference" standpoint.

(01-22-2020 08:32 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result.

The original C-USA was intended to be a "National Conference." It proved to be too large, both in members and geography. The "WAC 16" tried to be a "Jumbo Conference." It proved to be too large and too diverse.

Why some of you want to repeat the experiment baffles me. A Conference that stretches from Tampa, FL, to Boise, ID, will not work. Sorry...been there, done that.

No you haven’t “done that”. Nobody has. There has never been a national conference. CUSA worked fine. Nobody left because the footprint was too big. They left because they got an opportunity to jump to an AQ or power conference and make a ton more money.

Truth be told, the trend for FBS conferences has been to get bigger with larger footprints. Despite the fact everyone on message boards always talks about getting conferences to be more regional, there has been no move to actually do that in the real world—-mainly because it reduces tv revenue by making the conference less appealing to TV due to its smaller footprint.

The MAC is the most regional conference. It’s has low payout and the lowest average attendance in all of FBS. Not really a model to emulate.

Can a national conference work? Sure—no reason it couldn’t. However, to work, it would likely require the heavy use of divisional play to keep travel relatively reasonable. You might travel only for the revenue sports and have non-revenue sports play largely (or even entirely) within the division. It can work, you just have to use common sense.

https://www.mwcconnection.com/2020/1/22/...ision-deal

No thanks, they would be a cancer on the league. Let them go Indy.

(01-22-2020 02:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 08:32 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result.

The original C-USA was intended to be a "National Conference." It proved to be too large, both in members and geography. The "WAC 16" tried to be a "Jumbo Conference." It proved to be too large and too diverse.

Why some of you want to repeat the experiment baffles me. A Conference that stretches from Tampa, FL, to Boise, ID, will not work. Sorry...been there, done that.

No you haven’t “done that”. Nobody has. There has never been a national conference. CUSA worked fine. Nobody left because the footprint was too big. They left because they got an opportunity to jump to an AQ or power conference and make a ton more money.

Truth be told, the trend for FBS conferences has been to get bigger with larger footprints. Despite the fact everyone on message boards always talks about getting conferences to be more regional, there has been no move to actually do that in the real world—-mainly because it reduces tv revenue by making the conference less appealing to TV due to its smaller footprint.

The MAC is the most regional conference. It’s has low payout and the lowest average attendance in all of FBS. Not really a model to emulate.

Can a national conference work? Sure—no reason it couldn’t. However, to work, it would likely require the heavy use of divisional play to keep travel relatively reasonable. You might travel only for the revenue sports and have non-revenue sports play largely (or even entirely) within the division. It can work, you just have to use common sense.

.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(01-22-2020 02:16 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 08:32 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result.

The original C-USA was intended to be a "National Conference." It proved to be too large, both in members and geography. The "WAC 16" tried to be a "Jumbo Conference." It proved to be too large and too diverse.

Why some of you want to repeat the experiment baffles me. A Conference that stretches from Tampa, FL, to Boise, ID, will not work. Sorry...been there, done that.

Content. Football brands. Competiveness. Boise St is why you would go that far west. We're not talking about San Jose St. or any other flub from the G4. The BIG stretches from New Jersey to Nebraska. They have the money to do pretty much want they want but it works from a "national conference" standpoint.

It remains to be seen how the Big Ten actually works. There's no small discontent among Big Ten fans over the inclusion of Rutgers and Maryland in the conference. Nebraska is a better fit as to what the Big Ten actually is, but the eastern teams are not.

I have lived in Big XII country...West Virginia...and I can say that it is somewhat of a "mixed bag." WVU has almost nothing in common with the rest of the B12 schools, though oddly enough, Mountaineer Field has more than just a passing resemblance to Iowa State's Jack Trice Stadium. The B12 is purely a "marriage of convenience" for its members at this point...which is why people expect it to fall apart. But if you ask WVU fans, they frankly hate the late kick-off...and especially Tip-off...times (when the Eers play out west) and the fact that there are NO driveable road games. They have also lost a substantial amount of "Home Field Advantage" as home attendance has sagged, but visiting teams have brought more fans from alumni who have moved away from their alma mater (so Oklahoma fans who live in Ohio and Pennsylvania).

If the Big Ten manages to hang onto their current roster for twenty years, MAYBE people will get used to Rutgers and Maryland in the B10. But I doubt it. And, God forbid, the B10 adds Texas or Georgia Tech like some were saying.

All business IS personal...adding far flung teams sounds like a good idea, but in practice it doesn't work. The (new) Big East cementing their ethos was smart. That's the way forward, I think. Geography and "fit" are things that help fan bases get psyched and therefore bring $$$$. If just adding "markets" were a viable strategy, then the AAC would be doing better than it is.

(01-22-2020 02:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 08:32 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result.

The original C-USA was intended to be a "National Conference." It proved to be too large, both in members and geography. The "WAC 16" tried to be a "Jumbo Conference." It proved to be too large and too diverse.

Why some of you want to repeat the experiment baffles me. A Conference that stretches from Tampa, FL, to Boise, ID, will not work. Sorry...been there, done that.

No you haven’t “done that”. Nobody has. There has never been a national conference. CUSA worked fine. Nobody left because the footprint was too big. They left because they got an opportunity to jump to an AQ or power conference and make a ton more money.

Truth be told, the trend for FBS conferences has been to get bigger with larger footprints. Despite the fact everyone on message boards always talks about getting conferences to be more regional, there has been no move to actually do that in the real world—-mainly because it reduces tv revenue by making the conference less appealing to TV due to its smaller footprint.

The MAC is the most regional conference. It’s has low payout and the lowest average attendance in all of FBS. Not really a model to emulate.

Can a national conference work? Sure—no reason it couldn’t. However, to work, it would likely require the heavy use of divisional play to keep travel relatively reasonable. You might travel only for the revenue sports and have non-revenue sports play largely (or even entirely) within the division. It can work, you just have to use common sense.

CUSA didn't "work fine." When there was the "Red, White, and Blue" divisions (in basketball), there was no chance to build rivalries. Hell, most years you couldn't even tell who "was in" the conference. After the CUSAv1.0 fell apart, and things settled down a little, people were still trying to "get out." Seriously. UC's AD knew that, if UC wanted to remain a viable athletic department, they HAD to get out of CUSA. The Big East just happened to be the vehicle by which we could get out.

Sadly, that ship sank from out under us as well.

But to say that "CUSA worked fine" just boggles the imagination. (Which is why, every time people suggest getting the band back together again, I just shake my head.)