(06-24-2022 05:45 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  CUSA did have the kind of profiles to allow it to bring schools out to FBS like it did with Charlotte and Old Dominion who then moved onto better situations. CUSA 4.0 doesn't have that kind of pull to attract historically high-mid majors.

We literally just pulled two FCS teams up at the weakest point in conference history.

Replacing a WKU with an EKU or a MTSU with an SFA or (God willing, FIU with anyone or no-one) should be doable.

And if you need to replace Louisiana Tech, I think you could grab an FCS as well (but at that point I'm not too worried about who it is).

(06-24-2022 07:07 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 07:01 PM)inutech Wrote:  I mean, we can come up with arbitrary lists all day. Number of students, whatever.

But I don't want any new members.

I'm just saying that we've got quite a ways to go before we run out (and it only matters if there are any options at all if another shuffle happens and CUSA loses between two and eight schools).

EKU, Tarleton and SFA. Three schools you've heard about in the media.

CUSA is also just sitting at 9 members so can only afford to lose 1.

Well how many replacement teams are you expecting us to need? That's covering 4 potential departures right there.

(06-24-2022 07:07 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 05:45 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  CUSA did have the kind of profiles to allow it to bring schools out to FBS like it did with Charlotte and Old Dominion who then moved onto better situations. CUSA 4.0 doesn't have that kind of pull to attract historically high-mid majors.

We literally just pulled two FCS teams up at the weakest point in conference history.

Replacing a WKU with an EKU or a MTSU with an SFA or (God willing, FIU with anyone or no-one) should be doable.

And if you need to replace Louisiana Tech, I think you could grab an FCS as well (but at that point I'm not too worried about who it is).

They could use the WAC strategy whereby they add all of the schools in one state like they did with Utah Valley, Utah Tech and Southern Utah.

I'm not sure if all the schools in Louisiana would be open to that kind of thing.

(06-24-2022 07:09 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 07:07 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 07:01 PM)inutech Wrote:  I mean, we can come up with arbitrary lists all day. Number of students, whatever.

But I don't want any new members.

I'm just saying that we've got quite a ways to go before we run out (and it only matters if there are any options at all if another shuffle happens and CUSA loses between two and eight schools).

EKU, Tarleton and SFA. Three schools you've heard about in the media.

CUSA is also just sitting at 9 members so can only afford to lose 1.

Well how many replacement teams are you expecting us to need? That's covering 4 potential departures right there.

You can stay in business with 4 departures. The WAC after MWC 2.0 tried to hang on with UTSA and Texas St. but as soon as they could find a better situation they bolted.

Compare this with SBC where they can handle 6 departures and draft from 9 CUSA schools, plus FCS call ups beyond that would give it a serious listen.

They have a depth level of around 30 compared to 4 of CUSA.

(06-24-2022 07:17 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 07:09 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 07:07 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(06-24-2022 07:01 PM)inutech Wrote:  I mean, we can come up with arbitrary lists all day. Number of students, whatever.

But I don't want any new members.

I'm just saying that we've got quite a ways to go before we run out (and it only matters if there are any options at all if another shuffle happens and CUSA loses between two and eight schools).

EKU, Tarleton and SFA. Three schools you've heard about in the media.

CUSA is also just sitting at 9 members so can only afford to lose 1.

Well how many replacement teams are you expecting us to need? That's covering 4 potential departures right there.

You can stay in business with 4 departures. The WAC after MWC 2.0 tried to hang on with UTSA and Texas St. but as soon as they could find a better situation they bolted.

Compare this with SBC where they can handle 6 departures and draft from 9 CUSA schools, plus FCS call ups beyond that that would give it a serious listen.

They have a depth level of around 30 compared to 4 of CUSA.

Neat.


Good to know they'll be in great shape if they lose 30 schools. You've clearly not spoken to a SB fan lately though. Those schools are in loooooove and wouldn't leave one another for a spot in the SEC. So they should be fine either way.

Meanwhile if 4 teams leave (and mine isn't one of them), then CUSA can survive. Probably even if it's more. But if it's much more, the problem is solved.

(06-24-2022 04:37 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(06-23-2022 04:47 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  I like 10. That’s the maximum for a true round-robin, yet big enough to reduce the “oh, these guys AGAIN…” factor that you have with just 8 teams like the old Big 8.

What is the difference? You see them the same frequency. If anything, 8 opens up 2 additional OOC spots for greater variety.

Fair point - I just do like that size. You are right in that you’d see the teams at the same frequency each year (round robin football and double in hoops), but two more is just enough more for me to be preferable to just 7 conference opponents. Obviously it’s a matter of opinion.

9 creates round robin in football and double round robin in BB. 4 OOC creates some interesting regular season matchups

(06-25-2022 12:12 PM)Arch Stanton Wrote:  9 creates round robin in football and double round robin in BB. 4 OOC creates some interesting regular season matchups

I like less conference games and more non conference games.

A huge problem with assessing how good teams really are is the effect conference play has on any SOS metric.

Every conference is going .500 against itself. If all games were conference games, teams with teams with the exact same records would be essentially tied in a ranking system based on SOS. But when your conference wins more OOC games (Regardless of whom they are against), now everyone in the conference gets a higher SOS from conference games.

So playing 18-22 basketball games in conference, the number one thing for your national rating (aka getting into the NCAA Tourney or CFP) is how the BOTTOM of your conference does OOC.

When your 13th place team goes 9-3 OOC by buying 7 home games against teams 300+, your bubble teams are playing a 14-16 team that doesn't look bad at all on their SOS.

Playing NO ONE OOC actually helps your SOS, if your entire conference (or bottom half) does it! Which is the opposite of how SOS is supposed to work!


If there was one rule on conference size that was "Must play a single-round robin in all sports" then you couldn't have more than 12 members (because football is a 12-game season), and the basketball schedule would be 18 OOC games and 12 conference games, so your SOS would be WHO YOU PLAY OOC instead of just a counterintuitive mathematical technicality.

Ultimately, if the NCAA wasn't a clueless organization that lacked vision, they could have established TV revenue sharing in 1984 (Like, buy your rights from the NCAA for 50% of what you sell them for).

And then conferences wouldn't be TV cartels, but instead groups of teams that SHOULD be playing each other every year.

Because of TV cartels, we're get Rutgers/Nebraska, Pitt/Clemson, Minnesota/Maryland, Louisville/Wake, West Virginia/Oklahoma St, Florida/Missouri, UCF/BYU as conference "Rivalries" that no one really ever craved.

But we don't get Nebraska/Colorado, Pitt/WVU, Maryland/Virginia, Louisville/Cincinnati, Syracuse/Georgetown, and tons of other historical rivals that really should happen.

The ideal size for any conference is a group of teams who ALL SHOULD BE PLAYING EACH OTHER every year.

I think 12,14 or 16 depending on the conference.

12 is the bare minimum in my opinion to make a CCG worth it. Though most likely the CCG game is going to have a 1 loss team in it. I'm under the assumption of a 9 game football schedule. 20 game basketball schedule where you play everyone twice but the furthest school. There's a minimum chance of a repeat CCG unlike a 9 or 10 team conference.

14 is probably ideal now for G5 and P5.. Conference should have a 9 game schedule to maximize football revenue and has a better chance to match up 2 undefeated teams in the CCG game. 20 game basketball schedule and potential possibility of scheduling for distance and net factors.

16 is the max I see possible. 9 game football schedule and best chance for undefeated CCG game. Play everyone 1 in basketball and 5 closest teams near each school.

Ideally, it would be nice if we seen 9 conference games and kept 4 non-conference games. This would hopefully allow enough team rotation in a divisionless format to play teams frequently enough to build rivalries within conference in addition to currently rivalries, and allow teams to renew non-conference rivalries that were lost.

Also looking back the past 8 seasons at how 4 team conference playoffs for the conference championships would work for the P5, if conferences can figure it out logistically, I think you would need 14 teams min. to make both semifinals entertaining and not pairing a top 5 team with a 6 or 7 win team that finished 4th in a weaker P5 conference (happened a bit in a 10 team Big 12 and a few times to the PAC-12). This wouldn't complete get rid of that issue happening completely as it happened to the ACC a few times and even SEC once, but 14-16 teams would likely reduce the amount of times of this occurring.

The correct answer is 9. In fact, it is the perfect size for college athletic conference from a competition stand-point.

(06-26-2022 04:53 AM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  The correct answer is 9. In fact, it is the perfect size for college athletic conference from a competition stand-point.

FWIW, 81.8% of the vote tabulated when this was posted disagreed with that view and favored more than 9 teams per conference.

____________________________________________

(06-25-2022 08:47 PM)46566 Wrote:  I think 12,14 or 16 depending on the conference.

12 is the bare minimum in my opinion to make a CCG worth it. Though most likely the CCG game is going to have a 1 loss team in it. I'm under the assumption of a 9 game football schedule. 20 game basketball schedule where you play everyone twice but the furthest school. There's a minimum chance of a repeat CCG unlike a 9 or 10 team conference.

14 is probably ideal now for G5 and P5.. Conference should have a 9 game schedule to maximize football revenue and has a better chance to match up 2 undefeated teams in the CCG game. 20 game basketball schedule and potential possibility of scheduling for distance and net factors.

16 is the max I see possible. 9 game football schedule and best chance for undefeated CCG game. Play everyone 1 in basketball and 5 closest teams near each school.

With that simple statement, you may have "jinxed" it...

(06-26-2022 06:33 AM)Milwaukee Wrote:  

(06-26-2022 04:53 AM)AppfanInCAAland Wrote:  The correct answer is 9. In fact, it is the perfect size for college athletic conference from a competition stand-point.

FWIW, 81.8% of the vote tabulated when this was posted disagreed with that view and favored more than 9 teams per conference.

____________________________________________

Nevertheless, "to each his own."

Sure, but they're all wrong and this guy is right.