(11-08-2021 01:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 12:58 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 12:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 12:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 11:33 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Umm "they" here were CUSA, not the MAC. I don't think the MAC should be looking at UmAss or UConn no matter what. Again, unless we can nab WKU but not MTSU, then maybe tell UmAss the door is open all sports if they want it.

Yes, I see that now... and it makes the proposal look even worse. That's essentially asking these schools to *pay* for the "right" to play in C-USA. Call me crazy, but that won't fly.

Asking UConn or UMass to pay to subsidize the travel costs of CUSA football teams to play there is not an unprecedented idea. Hawai’i pays travel subsidies.

UConn and UMass might offer some scheduling convenience, but because they would not be full members, they would not help with the requirement for CUSA to have 8 full FBS members — i.e., some might think they are nice to have as football affiliate members, but they are not necessary to the conference’s FBS status.

I understand Hawaii does so... but that's the specific case of a truly massive geographic outlier with Hawaii.

In a theoretical C-USA, UConn and UMass might honestly be two of the easiest schools to travel to since you can fly right into Hartford airport and reach both of those schools quickly from there. All of the other C-USA schools are legitimate pains to travel to besides FIU (which is physically far but at least major airport accessible).

Flying to Hartford is no easier than flying to El Paso. Neither airport offers as many nonstops from other places as, say, Boston or DFW. Both probably offer a lot of nonstops from relatively nearby cities (e.g. Houston to El Paso).

And, again, CUSA, like the MWC, doesn’t have the incentive to offer the same terms (i.e. no travel subsidies) to football affiliates that they offer to full members.

Disagree on this. El Paso presently has permanent direct flights to 16 cities. Hartford has permanent direct flights to 27 cities. Pre-pandemic, Hartford had about 500k more passengers per year than El Paso with more destinations on more airlines. And that without considering that you can also fly to the three New York airports, Westchester County/White Plains (HPN), New Haven, Providence, and even Boston to easily access Hartford. On the other hand, El Paso is in the middle of nowhere.

But all of this is completely irrelevant for football travel because every team charters. So it is no problem whatsoever to have a FB-only member. Only extremely far destinations like Hawaii justify a football travel subsidy. The travel cost and ease of travel discussion is primarily relevant only to non-football sports.

(11-08-2021 12:49 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 12:38 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  MTSU has to begrudgingly join them. Think both are tied at the hip. Two birds with one stone sort of thing. What are the divisions? Are they going west with Toledo and BG going East?

Can the Michigan schools make the trip south feasibly? My guess would be to play at least two opponents in Olympic sports when traveling back and forth from Nashville/Detroit.

I've said this elsewhere: the "cultural" distance between Nashville and the Midwest is blinding people to the fact that the actual physical distance isn't nearly as far as it seems to be in people's minds. Nashville is an actual major city with a real airport with a lot of direct connections that would be less than a 2-hour flight from the major MAC metros. Plus, even for sports that have to bus it, the distance between Detroit and Nashville is about 8 hours. NIU and Ball State are actually closer to WKU and MTSU compared to Buffalo.

For whatever reason, people are imagining Nashville to be farther from the MAC footprint than what it is in reality. That's what I mean about the "cultural distance" getting in the way of what the true physical distance is here.

About the bolded, I agree about the geographical distance. Heck, if anything, MTSU and WKU are no more geographically isolated than is Buffalo, which is 200 miles from the nearest MAC school, Kent, and a lot farther than that from any of the others. And with MTSU and WKU, you get two schools in that area so it's a bigger island, to the extent its an island at all.

I would add that IMO the cultural division between the lower Midwest and the upper South can be overstated as well. This is more of a blending rather than a stark line. Cities like Cincy, Louisville and Nashville aren't the same, but they share a lot of cultural commonality. So IMO, the cultural distance between schools like Miami and Ohio and those two would not be that great.

(11-08-2021 01:13 PM)pvk75 Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 12:37 PM)BeatWestern! Wrote:  Update from the Nashville Post.

https://www.nashvillepost.com/sports/col...9a6d9.html

Subscribe paywall. Can't read it. Please summarize if you can. Thanks.

It's mostly a rehash of McMurphy tweets and recapping the additions CUSA made.

The only interesting bit is the MTSU AD refusing to go on the record regarding conference affiliation and stating that there are "still a couple of forks in the road and things have seem to change daily.”

(11-08-2021 10:36 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  A pod with Liberty, UMass, UConn, and another NE FCS (All sports)?

Then LA Tech, SHSU, UTEP, NMSU.

Other all sports would be JSU, EKU, UT-Chat, FIU (which is it's own pod).

But you'd need two divisions or a waiver to play a CCG with three pods.

Fugly...

I'd be talking to UMass and a bunch of A10 schools. UMass would be #8 in football (assuming WKU and MTSU leave) and then you would try to add St. Louis, Dayton, VCU and one to three other A10 schools to get a strong basketball conference and the A10 schools get to leave behind the dregs of the A10 with their tiny gyms.

(11-08-2021 01:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 10:36 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  A pod with Liberty, UMass, UConn, and another NE FCS (All sports)?

Then LA Tech, SHSU, UTEP, NMSU.

Other all sports would be JSU, EKU, UT-Chat, FIU (which is it's own pod).

But you'd need two divisions or a waiver to play a CCG with three pods.

Fugly...

I'd be talking to UMass and a bunch of A10 schools. UMass would be #8 in football (assuming WKU and MTSU leave) and then you would try to add St. Louis, Dayton, VCU and one to three other A10 schools to get a strong basketball conference and the A10 schools get to leave behind the dregs of the A10 with their tiny gyms.

Why would any of the A10 schools want to leave for CUSA? There's no benefit for them. And VCU will NEVER be in the same conference as Liberty.

(11-08-2021 02:05 PM)mufanatehc Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 01:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 10:36 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  A pod with Liberty, UMass, UConn, and another NE FCS (All sports)?

Then LA Tech, SHSU, UTEP, NMSU.

Other all sports would be JSU, EKU, UT-Chat, FIU (which is it's own pod).

But you'd need two divisions or a waiver to play a CCG with three pods.

Fugly...

I'd be talking to UMass and a bunch of A10 schools. UMass would be #8 in football (assuming WKU and MTSU leave) and then you would try to add St. Louis, Dayton, VCU and one to three other A10 schools to get a strong basketball conference and the A10 schools get to leave behind the dregs of the A10 with their tiny gyms.

Why would any of the A10 schools want to leave for CUSA? There's no benefit for them. And VCU will NEVER be in the same conference as Liberty.

Winnowing out the dead weight of the A10 (Duquesne, Fordham, etc.) and adding UTEP and NMSU who both have been to the final 4. A lot of the A10 play in high school level gyms with high school level fan support. So you take the best together and NMSU and UTEP have both been to the final 4.

(11-08-2021 01:38 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 01:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 12:58 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 12:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 12:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Yes, I see that now... and it makes the proposal look even worse. That's essentially asking these schools to *pay* for the "right" to play in C-USA. Call me crazy, but that won't fly.

Asking UConn or UMass to pay to subsidize the travel costs of CUSA football teams to play there is not an unprecedented idea. Hawai’i pays travel subsidies.

UConn and UMass might offer some scheduling convenience, but because they would not be full members, they would not help with the requirement for CUSA to have 8 full FBS members — i.e., some might think they are nice to have as football affiliate members, but they are not necessary to the conference’s FBS status.

I understand Hawaii does so... but that's the specific case of a truly massive geographic outlier with Hawaii.

In a theoretical C-USA, UConn and UMass might honestly be two of the easiest schools to travel to since you can fly right into Hartford airport and reach both of those schools quickly from there. All of the other C-USA schools are legitimate pains to travel to besides FIU (which is physically far but at least major airport accessible).

Flying to Hartford is no easier than flying to El Paso. Neither airport offers as many nonstops from other places as, say, Boston or DFW. Both probably offer a lot of nonstops from relatively nearby cities (e.g. Houston to El Paso).

And, again, CUSA, like the MWC, doesn’t have the incentive to offer the same terms (i.e. no travel subsidies) to football affiliates that they offer to full members.

Disagree on this. El Paso presently has permanent direct flights to 16 cities. Hartford has permanent direct flights to 27 cities. Pre-pandemic, Hartford had about 500k more passengers per year than El Paso with more destinations on more airlines. And that without considering that you can also fly to the three New York airports, Westchester County/White Plains (HPN), New Haven, Providence, and even Boston to easily access Hartford. On the other hand, El Paso is in the middle of nowhere.

But all of this is completely irrelevant for football travel because every team charters. So it is no problem whatsoever to have a FB-only member. Only extremely far destinations like Hawaii justify a football travel subsidy. The travel cost and ease of travel discussion is primarily relevant only to non-football sports.

Honolulu is 2400 miles from San Jose. Amherst is 2000 miles from El Paso. Either both are extremely far, or neither is.

(11-08-2021 02:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 01:38 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 01:16 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 12:58 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 12:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Asking UConn or UMass to pay to subsidize the travel costs of CUSA football teams to play there is not an unprecedented idea. Hawai’i pays travel subsidies.

UConn and UMass might offer some scheduling convenience, but because they would not be full members, they would not help with the requirement for CUSA to have 8 full FBS members — i.e., some might think they are nice to have as football affiliate members, but they are not necessary to the conference’s FBS status.

I understand Hawaii does so... but that's the specific case of a truly massive geographic outlier with Hawaii.

In a theoretical C-USA, UConn and UMass might honestly be two of the easiest schools to travel to since you can fly right into Hartford airport and reach both of those schools quickly from there. All of the other C-USA schools are legitimate pains to travel to besides FIU (which is physically far but at least major airport accessible).

Flying to Hartford is no easier than flying to El Paso. Neither airport offers as many nonstops from other places as, say, Boston or DFW. Both probably offer a lot of nonstops from relatively nearby cities (e.g. Houston to El Paso).

And, again, CUSA, like the MWC, doesn’t have the incentive to offer the same terms (i.e. no travel subsidies) to football affiliates that they offer to full members.

Disagree on this. El Paso presently has permanent direct flights to 16 cities. Hartford has permanent direct flights to 27 cities. Pre-pandemic, Hartford had about 500k more passengers per year than El Paso with more destinations on more airlines. And that without considering that you can also fly to the three New York airports, Westchester County/White Plains (HPN), New Haven, Providence, and even Boston to easily access Hartford. On the other hand, El Paso is in the middle of nowhere.

But all of this is completely irrelevant for football travel because every team charters. So it is no problem whatsoever to have a FB-only member. Only extremely far destinations like Hawaii justify a football travel subsidy. The travel cost and ease of travel discussion is primarily relevant only to non-football sports.

Honolulu is 2400 miles from San Jose. Amherst is 2000 miles from El Paso. Either both are extremely far, or neither is.

Once you’re in the air, does it really matter if the flight is an extra 30-60 minutes?

People in the East make such a big deal about distances in the West.

(11-08-2021 12:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 11:33 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 10:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The MAC has leverage, but that doesn't mean that it can just throw out bad faith proposals and expect to get anywhere.

Umm "they" here were CUSA, not the MAC. I don't think the MAC should be looking at UmAss or UConn no matter what. Again, unless we can nab WKU but not MTSU, then maybe tell UmAss the door is open all sports if they want it.

Yes, I see that now... and it makes the proposal look even worse. That's essentially asking these schools to *pay* for the "right" to play in C-USA. Call me crazy, but that won't fly.

I'll tell you why it might. (1) It's not going to affect their travel cost (2) Gives them potential bowl access and conference opponents (3) helps with recruiting given the footprint (4) if it's the both of them there is a regional rival game.

Now I'm not saying "it's a sure thing" but these teams desperately need a football conference home

(11-08-2021 12:32 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 11:27 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 10:40 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The MAC has leverage, but that doesn't mean that it can just throw out bad faith proposals and expect to get anywhere. That's why I don't buy the GoR rumor discussed in another thread.

I disagree that the MAC proposing a GOR for MTSU and WKU is insulting. It's a reflection of the reality of the situation.

In some thread, CSNBBS posters joked with youtube links.
MTSU, WKU: "Should I Stay Or Should I Go Now"
MAC: "Will You Love Me Forever?" (From MEatloaf PAradise by the Dashboard Light)

Middle Tennessee and Western Kentucky are, relative to the MAC schools, serious flight risks. And the MAC schools have been on this merry-go-round with Marshall and UCF and Temple and UMass.

If the MAC isn't MTSU and WKU's destination conference, then it's not a worthwhile move for the MAC to make. The MAC is just fine without them.

Minor point: I can't imagine that it would be a GOR just for Middle Tennessee and Western Kentucky, it would be a MAC-wide GOR, either for the length of a new ESPN deal or just for 15 or 20 years to protect the MAC. But as I said in some other thread, if me and you and Brad Pitt sign a pledge not to bed any Oscar-winning actresses in the next five years, it's equal on paper but Brad Pitt is the only one making any kind of concession.

I guess I'm not understanding the concern about WKU and MTSU being flight risks any more than anyone else in the MAC

Because nobody (else) in the MAC has anywhere to go. The 12 MAC schools have been together for 20+ years. 9 of the 12 MAC schools have been there since 1973.

The Big Ten ain't calling. The ACC ain't calling. The SEC ain't calling. The American might call Buffalo, maybe, but the AAC isn't what it was a year or two ago. Who knows what happens to the Big 12 in another 10 years, but if they're reduced to calling MAC schools, then are they worth jumping to?

The MAC schools are who they are, they are what they are. They're stable. You understood this when it was the C7, why is it hard to understand when it's Miami-O and Western Michigan? The current MAC schools are off the conference realignment merry-go-round. I know that you believe that the merry-go-round is about to stop for 20-30 years, but that's not something the MAC schools can bank on.

Adding schools means getting back on that merry-go-round. Unless you have pretty ironclad commitments that the new schools aren't going anywhere else.

Quote:or G5 in general. Neither of those schools fit the profile of the AAC, so that's not a realistic option.

The AAC has changed a lot in a short time. Who's to say that they don't change again? And two FBS schools in southern states, not too far from a top 30 city? That's a stone's throw from "the AAC profile."

Quote:Maybe the Sun Belt would be interested eventually in them, but that's a lateral move at best.

But in 5 years, if the Sun Belt is ranked above the MAC? MT and WKU might listen to a Sun Belt offer. Miami-O, Ball State, Toledo? They're not picking up the phone.

Quote:And even if the MAC is worried about WKU and MTSU being flight risks, there's a much simpler deterrent: raise the exit fees for them.

If an exit fee is big enough to be a deterrent to an otherwise-reasonable move, then it won't hold up in court. Exit fees can only be for "liquidated damages", not designed as a penalty.

Quote:That's a clear unambiguous way to achieve what the MAC wants *without* looking like they're going overboard.

Why is a Grant of Rights going overboard? A Grant of Rights is only a problem if you're looking to upgrade conferences. And if you're looking to upgrade conferences, the MAC doesn't need you.

EDIT: A Grant of Rights, which nominally applies to all 14 MAC schools, not just the newcomers, is a lot less "overboard" than the special exit fee clause the Big East imposed on UConn if they leave the Big East.

Quote:Maybe it's because I'm looking at this like a lawyer, but the GoR is one of those clauses that would be so insulting in this particular situation (e.g. we're not talking about a Big Ten invite) that I'd tell my client that it's not even worth talking to the other side. That's what I mean by a bad faith proposal - it's so insanely one-sided that the immediate reaction is that it's not even worth talking to the other party. Having leverage is one thing, but I strongly believe that even proposing a GoR would tank any type of deal and the MAC would reasonably know that here.

Middle Tennessee is looking at its 3rd conference move in 30 years if they go to the MAC. IF you've had 3 divorces, you can't complain too much if the family wants you to sign a prenup.

EDIT: And, an hour or two later, we get the tweet from McMurphy that Western Kentucky (which is very much not an AAC profile school) is ready and willing to sign with the MAC, while Middle Tennessee (who maybe sees themselves as a possible AAC-type school half-an-hour-from-a-big-airport) is hesitant.

(11-08-2021 01:31 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 12:32 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I guess I'm not understanding the concern about WKU and MTSU being flight risks any more than anyone else in the MAC or G5 in general. ...

I think it would be unreasonable to suppose that the rumored GOR is on WKU and MTSU alone ...

... it doesn't make commercial sense for ESPN to suggest a GOR to go along with a contract bump/extension and to propose only placing it on WKU/MTSU. There will be other schools raising the average media value in ESPN's analysis. If ESPN wants a GOR, it seems odd that they would not do the same for the MAC as they have done with Power Conferences and ask for a conference wide one.

I doubt that it's ESPN pushing for a MAC Grant of Rights. I expect it's being pushed by skeptics of the MT-WK additions.

The B1G and PAC grants of rights are tied into their ownership of the B1G and PAC12N, as far as I know.

(11-08-2021 03:21 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

That 100 miles of hate will really heat up if they don't get into the MAC.

WKU will blame MTSU

(11-08-2021 03:21 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

Interesting that it works financially for WKU but not MTSU. Just a reminder that the margins are razor thin.

(11-08-2021 03:24 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 03:21 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

That 100 miles of hate will really heat up if they don't get into the MAC.

WKU will blame MTSU

If MTSU says no for some reason, I really wish UMass would join for all sports. They'd have a better shot at the tourney in the MAC than in the A-10. I just don't see UMass getting one of the 5ish bids the A10 gets very often.

The financials must be exit fees because MAC will have more tv revenue and travel expenses are a wash.

(11-08-2021 03:38 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 03:24 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(11-08-2021 03:21 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

That 100 miles of hate will really heat up if they don't get into the MAC.

WKU will blame MTSU

If MTSU says no for some reason, I really wish UMass would join for all sports. They'd have a better shot at the tourney in the MAC than in the A-10. I just don't see UMass getting one of the 5ish bids the A10 gets very often.

If I were the MAC, my 2 best choices (on the assumption that Marshall had no interest) would be WKU and UMass. And I would take WKU and, if necessary, settle for UMass for football only.

(11-08-2021 02:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  I'd be talking to UMass and a bunch of A10 schools. UMass would be #8 in football (assuming WKU and MTSU leave) and then you would try to add St. Louis, Dayton, VCU and one to three other A10 schools to get a strong basketball conference and the A10 schools get to leave behind the dregs of the A10 with their tiny gyms.
...
Winnowing out the dead weight of the A10 (Duquesne, Fordham, etc.) and adding UTEP and NMSU who both have been to the final 4. A lot of the A10 play in high school level gyms with high school level fan support. So you take the best together and NMSU and UTEP have both been to the final 4.

Non sense. The money is better in the A-10 because of their NCAA revenue split. UTEP and NMSU have been to the Final Four... So have LaSalle (twice, 1 championship), St. Bonaventure, Dayton, Duquesne, Saint Joe's, UMass, George Mason and VCU.

The current members/future members of C-USA have gotten one at-large bid to the NCAA tournament since 1993 (UTEP, 2010). The A-10's gotten an at-large in 35 or 38 tournaments. Usually 2 or as many as five.

No one is leaving the A-10 for C-USA. UMass would leave for the AAC or higher. Fordham might leave for the Patriot, would leave for the Ivy (which ain't happening). Everyone else is only leaving for the Big East or not at all.

(11-08-2021 02:50 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  If an exit fee is big enough to be a deterrent to an otherwise-reasonable move, then it won't hold up in court. Exit fees can only be for "liquidated damages", not designed as a penalty.

Surely lawyers can find a way around that issue. Charge them a $15 million entrance fee and give them the money back after 15 years if they are still in the conference at that point. Something like that.

(11-08-2021 10:36 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  A pod with Liberty, UMass, UConn, and another NE FCS (All sports)?

Then LA Tech, SHSU, UTEP, NMSU.

Other all sports would be JSU, EKU, UT-Chat, FIU (which is it's own pod).

But you'd need two divisions or a waiver to play a CCG with three pods.

Fugly...

FGCU school leaders said they are not going to add football.

North Florida still have not dropped the idea of adding football.

I still think MTSU and WKU is working on trying to get Chattanooga and Missouri State on board. They will stay if these two schools say yes now. NDSU and SDSU and UMASS as football only, then add North Florida, Dayton and VCU.