(04-19-2013 02:34 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  What kind of a conference has fans that say crap like that? Not a very good one.

Why not just leave the board? Better yet, go root for Ole Miss or Miss State if you don't like the conference.

(04-19-2013 02:34 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 02:14 PM)TruBlu Wrote:  I like C-USA's chances of quickly surpassing the MAC in football strength.

That's just depressing.

What kind of a conference has fans that say crap like that? Not a very good one.

It is, indeed. But it's now time to make lemonade out of the lemon.

And that begins by figuring out how to best make sure that our group stands a fair chance at gaining that BCS berth every year...

Which, I submit, means getting behind and raising the volume for some kind of mini-playoff... optimally, involving the 4 champions of the highest rated Go5 conferences... but if not, establishing an arrangement with the MAC that boosts one or the other conference's champion to a year-in-year-out even footing with the top dog from AAC and MWC.

woopty doo

You guys seem to fail to realize that the one thing that hurt CUSA 2.0 was parity. While true the AAC has better parity than CUSA that is both a blessing and a curse. Just as the Big East has had several years were the champion had 3 conference losses so too will this affect the AAC. Now look at Boise who has dominated the MWC and their "middle of the road" teams are still lower ranked in sagarin. So overall your probably right in that the AAC is better top to bottom but that is going to hurt in the wins and losses category where as say Marshall Southern Miss or even a WKU under Petrino has a much better chance to run the table in conference and come out with a much better record. I am not saying that the AAC isn't a better conference top to bottom what I am saying though is that there isn't one team in the AAC that is so much better than any of the other teams that they will stand out like a Boise State or a NIU from last year and that is going to hurt you. From what I understand its not the highest rated team from the Go5 its the highest ranked team and that has a lot to do with human perception.

(04-19-2013 01:54 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Underdog, I submit that a five-year average Sagarin ranking is a better indicator of the general level of competitiveness for any given program... any one year is too subject to highs and lows to give it very much credibility.

Here's that:



But I can't deny that you're correct if we just look at those numbers. (Others will, but they're the Pollyannas with a motive to deny what is obvious to any objective observer.)

What I can say to the positive side of CUSA 3.0's ledger, as can be said of AAC's negative side, is, first, in actual on the field competition, there was no clear-cut perennial difference between Houston and Marshall and Southern Miss and ECU... in any given year, one of those might've had the edge over another.

And maybe most importantly, the normal distribution predicts that AAC is going to see the emergence of a definitive middle... whereas right now, they are top heavy.... and that CUSA is going to also see the emergence of a definitive middle... whereas right now, they are bottom-heavy.

Thanks for the 5 year analysis…. However, the only concern I have with it is that all the schools would have new players after 4 years (except those red shirted). Therefore, my current rankings would reflect this turnover in players and where the schools are currently ranked. Moreover, I can see going back 4 years, but not 5.

(04-19-2013 03:35 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 02:34 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 02:14 PM)TruBlu Wrote:  I like C-USA's chances of quickly surpassing the MAC in football strength.

That's just depressing.

What kind of a conference has fans that say crap like that? Not a very good one.

It is, indeed. But it's now time to make lemonade out of the lemon.

And that begins by figuring out how to best make sure that our group stands a fair chance at gaining that BCS berth every year...

Which, I submit, means getting behind and raising the volume for some kind of mini-playoff... optimally, involving the 4 champions of the highest rated Go5 conferences... but if not, establishing an arrangement with the MAC that boosts one or the other conference's champion to a year-in-year-out even footing with the top dog from AAC and MWC.

You can’t make good lemonade if you add some bad lemons. Both the AAC and C-USA added some questionable schools. I won’t name any specific selections out of respect to the fans of these schools. However, more attention should have been given to the quality of the fb programs than just markets.

Keep this in mind:

"You'll recall that last fall Boston College athletic director Gene Difilippo told the Boston Globe the ACC expanded to take Pitt and Syracuse because ESPN told the conference to do so. Remember these quotes? 'We always keep our television partners close to us,’’'Difilippo said. 'You don’t get extra money for basketball. It’s 85 percent football money.'"

http://outkickthecoverage.com/espn-fox-a...e-dame.php

Consequently, I like your idea of a “mini-playoff.” I suggested something similar on the AAC boards. The AAC is considering starting its on bowl. Consequently, I suggested a BCS elimination bowl between the AAC champ and the MWC champ. The AAC may consider a “mini-playoff” idea if the NCAA would allow it and the finalist could play in the AAC bowl. Nevertheless, I think this will eventually happen because it appears the power conferences are on the verge of separating from the mid-majors and forming their on alliance.

One-third of CUSA's money is coming from basketball units.
The new Big East got a better TV deal for basketball than any G5 football league.

It may be all football at the Rich 5 level but that's not true of the G5

(04-20-2013 08:17 AM)cyc46 Wrote:  You guys seem to fail to realize that the one thing that hurt CUSA 2.0 was parity. While true the AAC has better parity than CUSA that is both a blessing and a curse. Just as the Big East has had several years were the champion had 3 conference losses so too will this affect the AAC. Now look at Boise who has dominated the MWC and their "middle of the road" teams are still lower ranked in sagarin. So overall your probably right in that the AAC is better top to bottom but that is going to hurt in the wins and losses category where as say Marshall Southern Miss or even a WKU under Petrino has a much better chance to run the table in conference and come out with a much better record. I am not saying that the AAC isn't a better conference top to bottom what I am saying though is that there isn't one team in the AAC that is so much better than any of the other teams that they will stand out like a Boise State or a NIU from last year and that is going to hurt you. From what I understand its not the highest rated team from the Go5 its the highest ranked team and that has a lot to do with human perception.

Not the first time someone has tried to put forward this idea of teams beating each other up, but it's fallacious.

Last I looked, I think you have to go back to the first year of CUSA play to find one where a division champion didn't have double-digit wins... that speaks for itself.

In any given year, you'll find a dominant few teams, though those teams may rotate somewhat. So, it's not like you have 8-4 teams or even 9-3 teams dominating CUSA history.

Moreover, the rest of MWC looks a lot like CUSA statistically... Boise gets this rap as-if they've been playing Sun Belt quality teams all these years and getting fat on inferior teams, when from a CUSA standpoint, the truth is, no, they've been getting fat because they're just that good.

(04-20-2013 11:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  One-third of CUSA's money is coming from basketball units.
The new Big East got a better TV deal for basketball than any G5 football league.

It may be all football at the Rich 5 level but that's not true of the G5

You've figured out something that normally takes folks a long time to realize. While football drives the income at the "big" conferences, for those of us in midlevel conferences, ncaa tournament credits are very important.

(04-20-2013 11:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  One-third of CUSA's money is coming from basketball units.
The new Big East got a better TV deal for basketball than any G5 football league.

It may be all football at the Rich 5 level but that's not true of the G5

Good points.... Maybe the AAC, C-USA, and Sun Belt should have focused more on adding better bball schools. However, it seems that football is their primary focus.

Even so, if two-thirds of my income comes from one job, and only one-third from the other, guess which one carries more weight... just because it carries even more weight at the next level doesn't really mean anything to our situation.

(04-20-2013 01:30 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Even so, if two-thirds of my income comes from one job, and only one-third from the other, guess which one carries more weight... just because it carries even more weight at the next level doesn't really mean anything to our situation.

How much of the TV deal is basketball? The old Big East deal was 2/3rds hoops they were going to assign 70% football and 30% basketball before the C7 broke away.

Unless Fox and CBSS are not showing any basketball games there is some value to it. If 30% of CUSA's TV is hoops then basketball produced more than half of the league's income and that's not considering any profit for non-TV revenue like the gate or bid guarantee for the conference tournament or championship game.

Football drives the bus? Hoops is CUSA's largest revenue source.

So, I think I get what you're saying now... 1/3 of the revenue comes directly from March Madness participation, and when you put that amount together with whatever the revenue from the regular season basketball TV contract, that it amounts to more than half of the overall income.

First of all, regardless of its salience to this discussion, it's an interesting assertion... may I ask for a source? I've never read that.

(04-20-2013 03:52 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  So, I think I get what you're saying now... 1/3 of the revenue comes directly from March Madness participation, and when you put that amount together with whatever the revenue from the regular season basketball TV contract, that it amounts to more than half of the overall income.

First of all, regardless of its salience to this discussion, it's an interesting assertion... may I ask for a source? I've never read that.

Which part?

Collegesportsinfo has the old Big East numbers you have to do math to figure out what the apportionment was. The 70% football was widely reported (Boise had an out clause if 70% wasn't apportioned to football).

The per conference NCAA distribution is on the NCAA website.