(08-13-2013 09:42 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 09:33 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 09:28 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Looks like Cincinnati and BYU maybe in talks with the Big 12.

So the new conference's known teams:

Connecticut
East Carolina
South Florida

San Diego State
Boise State
Houston

The question that I have how many teams, 12 or 14? It looks like they need 3 more Eastern and Western teams.

I'm guessing it would be 12:

Connecticut
East Carolina
South Florida
Central Florida
Memphis
Temple

San Diego State
Boise State
Houston
SMU
Fresno State
Nevada

I could see this as 12. Navy, Tulsa, and Tulane really did not fit.

I actually think the conference would be fairly large. Probably 16-24 members. It's purpose would be a catch-all for the mid-majors and states that have no P5 representation. I think Air Force, Navy, Army, Hawaii, and New Mexico probably each gets in. Wyoming (no P5 representation) and S Miss (long history) might also make the cut. Since it would be part of a new division, the rules could be written to allow pod play and an internal playoff so that the could operate in a way to make it pretty interesting. I suspect it's champ would be AQ and would be part of the a new D4 8-12 team playoff. As an AQ conference with an 4-team internal playoff, the media value would be significanlty more than the current sum of its parts.

(08-13-2013 09:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 09:42 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 09:33 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 09:28 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Looks like Cincinnati and BYU maybe in talks with the Big 12.

So the new conference's known teams:

Connecticut
East Carolina
South Florida

San Diego State
Boise State
Houston

The question that I have how many teams, 12 or 14? It looks like they need 3 more Eastern and Western teams.

I'm guessing it would be 12:

Connecticut
East Carolina
South Florida
Central Florida
Memphis
Temple

San Diego State
Boise State
Houston
SMU
Fresno State
Nevada

I could see this as 12. Navy, Tulsa, and Tulane really did not fit.

I actually think the conference would be fairly large. Probably 16-24 members. It's purpose would be a catch-all for the mid-majors and states that have no P5 representation. I think Air Force, Navy, Army, Hawaii, and New Mexico probably each gets in. Wyoming (no P5 representation) and S Miss (long history) might also make the cut.

S. Miss wouldn't make the cut because they have no money. I don't see how a bankrupt school can pay the money it takes.

(08-13-2013 09:54 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 09:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 09:42 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 09:33 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 09:28 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Looks like Cincinnati and BYU maybe in talks with the Big 12.

So the new conference's known teams:

Connecticut
East Carolina
South Florida

San Diego State
Boise State
Houston

The question that I have how many teams, 12 or 14? It looks like they need 3 more Eastern and Western teams.

I'm guessing it would be 12:

Connecticut
East Carolina
South Florida
Central Florida
Memphis
Temple

San Diego State
Boise State
Houston
SMU
Fresno State
Nevada

I could see this as 12. Navy, Tulsa, and Tulane really did not fit.

I actually think the conference would be fairly large. Probably 16-24 members. It's purpose would be a catch-all for the mid-majors and states that have no P5 representation. I think Air Force, Navy, Army, Hawaii, and New Mexico probably each gets in. Wyoming (no P5 representation) and S Miss (long history) might also make the cut.

S. Miss wouldn't make the cut because they have no money. I don't see how a bankrupt school can pay the money it takes.

The school would have to raise its budget to qualify. Like I said, the schools not included would either refuse to do what is necessary or be unable to do what is required.

(08-13-2013 09:32 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 08:33 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  I've come up with an ingenious plan! Remember that plan we had a year ago that failed? We're going to do that again!

The plan wasn't a failure, it was the BE structure: fb vs non-fb schools trying to make football decisions. The instability of the BE didn’t help either. Moreover, The Big East name made the plan of a coast-to-coast conference a joke to many in the sports media. Nevertheless, it was still a very good plan. If the C7 had separated before the plan was attempeted, it might have succeeded. An actual western division could have been established.

I tend to agree with this. The instability of the BE at the time was two-fold, schools jumping to the ACC/Big 10 as well as the C7 problems.

The C7 thing probably simmered before it boiled with a lot of time being spent trying to keep them on board by those that ran the BE Conference at the time.

The other elephant in the room are the people who run these Conferences trying to save their jobs. Until the schools take matters into their own hands and do what is best for them, the business of realignment is in the hands of those that run each Conference... especially since the money turned out basically the same.

(08-13-2013 09:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  A couple of days later MHver3 tweeted that he was able to confirm the presence of 2 other schools at that alleged meeting--UNLV and Air Force.

That makes the list 4 MWC and 4 AAC.

I've said many times that the the G5 would eventually devolve into one of 2 models.

Model 1, a trans-regional league of the top programs and a number of regional leagues that are the point of entry for new to FBS schools and the schools not picked to play in the upper-crust league.

Model 2. Several strong regional leagues with a trans-regional "catch-all" league patching together schools not selected by their regional league or neighboring regional league.

Do I buy this "report"? Not really but it makes far more sense than a lot of what passes around as hot news.

The MWC breakaway started with 5 schools meeting. They agreed to what they wanted to do and invited three more to join them (the claim has always been they agreed in principle to go to 9 but never reached consensus on the 9th team).

IF there is substance to this the likely path would be to first meet and see if there is agreement on what to do. If the eight agree that a new league is the correct path, the next step would be to determine what model they want (ie. 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, or more members).

The logical course would be 12, two more Central/Eastern time zone schools and two more Pacific/Mountain/Hawaiian time zone.

Taking six from MWC (provided USU or SJSU isn't one of the two) you now have six schools that have competed together for the preceeding two years arguably giving you an auto berth in every sport except basketball which would arguably be eligible in 2016-17.

You wouldn't even consider announcing prior to the end of the football season because you run the risk the AAC might declare departing schools ineligible to win the conference. So you announce March 31, 2014. If the AAC kept the 27 month notice requirement of the Big East, the AAC departees are eligible to begin play July 1, 2016.

It's all doable. That doesn't mean its what anyone wants or that a majority want but it can be made to work.

A nugget of gossip that is interesting on this line is people at three different schools (two Sun Belt, one CUSA) have said the story to watch in realignment is Houston because Houston, privately, isn't pleased with how the AAC has come together. The reason that is interesting is because all three schools used Chuck Neinas as a consultant and he was the person working with CUSA and MWC when they were talking Alliance. Plus it is plausible to believe Neinas had some level of contact with Houston as Big XII interim commissioner when the Big XII was back-filling.

Another thought on 12 as the number. I would suspect that AFA if involved would lobby for a 7 game schedule UNLESS Navy and/or Army were involved as conference games. If Navy were on board and made Air Force's permanent cross-over game AFA would be fine with an 8 game slate. Their need to play Army and Navy annually gives them very little schedule flexibility. If one of the meetings is part of the league schedule their life gets easier.

(08-13-2013 10:07 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 09:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  A couple of days later MHver3 tweeted that he was able to confirm the presence of 2 other schools at that alleged meeting--UNLV and Air Force.

That makes the list 4 MWC and 4 AAC.

I've said many times that the the G5 would eventually devolve into one of 2 models.

Model 1, a trans-regional league of the top programs and a number of regional leagues that are the point of entry for new to FBS schools and the schools not picked to play in the upper-crust league.

Model 2. Several strong regional leagues with a trans-regional "catch-all" league patching together schools not selected by their regional league or neighboring regional league.

Do I buy this "report"? Not really but it makes far more sense than a lot of what passes around as hot news.

The MWC breakaway started with 5 schools meeting. They agreed to what they wanted to do and invited three more to join them (the claim has always been they agreed in principle to go to 9 but never reached consensus on the 9th team).

IF there is substance to this the likely path would be to first meet and see if there is agreement on what to do. If the eight agree that a new league is the correct path, the next step would be to determine what model they want (ie. 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, or more members).

The logical course would be 12, two more Central/Eastern time zone schools and two more Pacific/Mountain/Hawaiian time zone.

Taking six from MWC (provided USU or SJSU isn't one of the two) you now have six schools that have competed together for the preceeding two years arguably giving you an auto berth in every sport except basketball which would arguably be eligible in 2016-17.

You wouldn't even consider announcing prior to the end of the football season because you run the risk the AAC might declare departing schools ineligible to win the conference. So you announce March 31, 2014. If the AAC kept the 27 month notice requirement of the Big East, the AAC departees are eligible to begin play July 1, 2016.

It's all doable. That doesn't mean its what anyone wants or that a majority want but it can be made to work.

A nugget of gossip that is interesting on this line is people at three different schools (two Sun Belt, one CUSA) have said the story to watch in realignment is Houston because Houston, privately, isn't pleased with how the AAC has come together. The reason that is interesting is because all three schools used Chuck Neinas as a consultant and he was the person working with CUSA and MWC when they were talking Alliance. Plus it is plausible to believe Neinas had some level of contact with Houston as Big XII interim commissioner when the Big XII was back-filling.

Neinas was also working with ECU when we were trying to get in the Big East.

Not that I actually believe the crap this guy is spewing but you've got to have more than 12 in a league that spread out. I'd probably go with 16 or maybe 18 for football. Full round robin on each side in football and a strong basketball conference as well.

WEST
Boise
Fresno
SDSU
UNLV
Tulsa
SMU
Colorado State
New Mexico
Air Force (FB only, explored FB only membership a couple of yrs ago)

EAST
UConn
Cincy
ECU
USF
UCF
Temple
Memphis
Houston
Navy (FB only)

Start small, 9-12 members, phase in new members over time until you reach the desired max. Work with television partners all the while to make sure you are bringing in the schools the networks want.

(08-13-2013 09:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 09:42 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 09:33 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 09:28 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Looks like Cincinnati and BYU maybe in talks with the Big 12.

So the new conference's known teams:

Connecticut
East Carolina
South Florida

San Diego State
Boise State
Houston

The question that I have how many teams, 12 or 14? It looks like they need 3 more Eastern and Western teams.

I'm guessing it would be 12:

Connecticut
East Carolina
South Florida
Central Florida
Memphis
Temple

San Diego State
Boise State
Houston
SMU
Fresno State
Nevada

I could see this as 12. Navy, Tulsa, and Tulane really did not fit.

I actually think the conference would be fairly large. Probably 16-24 members. It's purpose would be a catch-all for the mid-majors and states that have no P5 representation. I think Air Force, Navy, Army, Hawaii, and New Mexico probably each gets in. Wyoming (no P5 representation) and S Miss (long history) might also make the cut. Since it would be part of a new division, the rules could be written to allow pod play and an internal playoff so that the could operate in a way to make it pretty interesting. I suspect it's champ would be AQ and would be part of the a new D4 8-12 team playoff. As an AQ conference with an 4-team internal playoff, the media value would be significanlty more than the current sum of its parts.

Are you like my twin separated at birth or something? Been reading through this thread with certain thoughts in my mind and every post of yours keeps wiping some of it out because you are posting everything I was thinking.

Such a gatekeeper conference would absolutely be larger than just 12 teams. The conference would have to adhere to the same rules that the Majors will be setting for themselves. You are spot on, in my opinion, about the 16-24. I probably would have said 16-20 but that's close enough.

With a larger conference and four divisions, they will be able to mitigate the travel costs of having a conference that spans the country. In fact, at 24 they could have four divisions of six but in other sports they could split it into only two divisions and thus alleviate travel issues even further.

If these schools do this, they will go bigger rather than smaller to help with costs. That means this is a very incomplete list and these schools are the ones with the most value that will be deciding who gets in with them.

In the end I don't think they will create a new conference. They will just figure out which of their conferences contains the highest percentage of programs that they want to come along.

My money is on the AAC being the one they end up using if any of this actually happens.

(08-13-2013 09:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 09:42 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 09:33 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 09:28 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Looks like Cincinnati and BYU maybe in talks with the Big 12.

So the new conference's known teams:

Connecticut
East Carolina
South Florida

San Diego State
Boise State
Houston

The question that I have how many teams, 12 or 14? It looks like they need 3 more Eastern and Western teams.

I'm guessing it would be 12:

Connecticut
East Carolina
South Florida
Central Florida
Memphis
Temple

San Diego State
Boise State
Houston
SMU
Fresno State
Nevada

I could see this as 12. Navy, Tulsa, and Tulane really did not fit.

I actually think the conference would be fairly large. Probably 16-24 members. It's purpose would be a catch-all for the mid-majors and states that have no P5 representation. I think Air Force, Navy, Army, Hawaii, and New Mexico probably each gets in. Wyoming (no P5 representation) and S Miss (long history) might also make the cut. Since it would be part of a new division, the rules could be written to allow pod play and an internal playoff so that the could operate in a way to make it pretty interesting. I suspect it's champ would be AQ and would be part of the a new D4 8-12 team playoff. As an AQ conference with an 4-team internal playoff, the media value would be significanlty more than the current sum of its parts.

If the conference is watered down by including 16-24 teams, then wouldn't the whole purpose of forming the conference be lost. It seems to me the whole idea is to get rid of as much dead weight as possible and include only the top teams.

(08-13-2013 10:41 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 09:49 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 09:42 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 09:33 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 09:28 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Looks like Cincinnati and BYU maybe in talks with the Big 12.

So the new conference's known teams:

Connecticut
East Carolina
South Florida

San Diego State
Boise State
Houston

The question that I have how many teams, 12 or 14? It looks like they need 3 more Eastern and Western teams.

I'm guessing it would be 12:

Connecticut
East Carolina
South Florida
Central Florida
Memphis
Temple

San Diego State
Boise State
Houston
SMU
Fresno State
Nevada

I could see this as 12. Navy, Tulsa, and Tulane really did not fit.

I actually think the conference would be fairly large. Probably 16-24 members. It's purpose would be a catch-all for the mid-majors and states that have no P5 representation. I think Air Force, Navy, Army, Hawaii, and New Mexico probably each gets in. Wyoming (no P5 representation) and S Miss (long history) might also make the cut. Since it would be part of a new division, the rules could be written to allow pod play and an internal playoff so that the could operate in a way to make it pretty interesting. I suspect it's champ would be AQ and would be part of the a new D4 8-12 team playoff. As an AQ conference with an 4-team internal playoff, the media value would be significanlty more than the current sum of its parts.

If the conference is watered down by including 16-24 teams, then the whole purpose of forming the conference is lost. It seems to me the whole idea is to get rid of as much dead weight as possible and include only the top teams.

Sixteen isn't watered down. If SMU was part of it, your division would probably have at least three Texas schools and then one from a surrounding State. If the conference goes to 20 schools then you probably get New Mexico and a Louisiana school. At 24 you probably also get Tulsa due to their competitive nature.

If you allow for an 8 game schedule so that you guys can better monetize your OOC games then with twenty schools you are only playing one game against each of the other divisions OR you play your division and four out of the five teams from another division each year. That would be taking another tip from the NFL.

This conference would be about maximizing regional rivalries and then bringing them together in a post season tournament event. The WAC tried something similar but it never had a post season tournament to wrap it all up together in a combined product.

Remember the MWC/WAC16 math and remember the Big8/SWC/Big12 math.

MWC exists because the schools figured out they could go smaller, get a smaller TV deal and pocket more money per team.

When the CFA fell apart, the Big 8 and SWC unhappy with what ABC was offering tried to do a joint venture bundling their TV together and found that one joint venture of 16 couldn't produce more than the two league of 8 acting independently but they could pocket more per team by having fewer teams.

In the past 20 years the trend is supposedly bigger is better but the SWC went out of business and now the WAC is out of the football business because sometimes smaller is better.

If there is anything to this, far more likely that they'd go 12 and try to dominate the CFP selection process and if over time other programs emerge that foil that, you absorb them.

(08-13-2013 10:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Remember the MWC/WAC16 math and remember the Big8/SWC/Big12 math.

MWC exists because the schools figured out they could go smaller, get a smaller TV deal and pocket more money per team.

When the CFA fell apart, the Big 8 and SWC unhappy with what ABC was offering tried to do a joint venture bundling their TV together and found that one joint venture of 16 couldn't produce more than the two league of 8 acting independently but they could pocket more per team by having fewer teams.

In the past 20 years the trend is supposedly bigger is better but the SWC went out of business and now the WAC is out of the football business because sometimes smaller is better.

If there is anything to this, far more likely that they'd go 12 and try to dominate the CFP selection process and if over time other programs emerge that foil that, you absorb them.

Does getting rid of 50% of the MWC and 50% of the AAC really make a stronger football league?

possibly but not significantly.

What does it do for other sports?
it kills it with travel costs.

(08-13-2013 10:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  If there is anything to this, far more likely that they'd go 12 and try to dominate the CFP selection process and if over time other programs emerge that foil that, you absorb them.

Yes.

(08-13-2013 11:00 AM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Remember the MWC/WAC16 math and remember the Big8/SWC/Big12 math.

MWC exists because the schools figured out they could go smaller, get a smaller TV deal and pocket more money per team.

When the CFA fell apart, the Big 8 and SWC unhappy with what ABC was offering tried to do a joint venture bundling their TV together and found that one joint venture of 16 couldn't produce more than the two league of 8 acting independently but they could pocket more per team by having fewer teams.

In the past 20 years the trend is supposedly bigger is better but the SWC went out of business and now the WAC is out of the football business because sometimes smaller is better.

If there is anything to this, far more likely that they'd go 12 and try to dominate the CFP selection process and if over time other programs emerge that foil that, you absorb them.

Does getting rid of 50% of the MWC and 50% of the AAC really make a stronger football league?

possibly but not significantly.

What does it do for other sports?
it kills it with travel costs.

This isn't about strength of football. It will be the top athletic budgets from both leagues and other guidelines such as attendance, growth, etc.

(08-13-2013 10:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Remember the MWC/WAC16 math and remember the Big8/SWC/Big12 math.

MWC exists because the schools figured out they could go smaller, get a smaller TV deal and pocket more money per team.

When the CFA fell apart, the Big 8 and SWC unhappy with what ABC was offering tried to do a joint venture bundling their TV together and found that one joint venture of 16 couldn't produce more than the two league of 8 acting independently but they could pocket more per team by having fewer teams.

In the past 20 years the trend is supposedly bigger is better but the SWC went out of business and now the WAC is out of the football business because sometimes smaller is better.

If there is anything to this, far more likely that they'd go 12 and try to dominate the CFP selection process and if over time other programs emerge that foil that, you absorb them.

These conferences have never had the ability to take advantage of such numbers. Being able to split into four smaller divisions and having the winner of each division be able to represent the division in a conference tournament is an entirely new concept that may be just around the corner.

It is my assertion that if the WAC was able to do that, that it would have succeeded. Also, the WAC consisted of programs in an area of the country that is not wild about college athletics and many of those programs had little following.

This idea of taking the more valuable programs at that level across the country and putting them together, it is stronger than what the WAC had accumulated.

People keep using the WAC as example but the WAC was a very weak combination of schools and it couldn't garner a high enough pay day to maintain that large of a line up.

This kind of gathering of schools that we are discussing would get a better payday AND it would have new mechanisms to profit off of. I say that with certainty because it is likely this idea would never get off the ground unless we get the new division and new rules for that division.

(08-13-2013 11:00 AM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Remember the MWC/WAC16 math and remember the Big8/SWC/Big12 math.

MWC exists because the schools figured out they could go smaller, get a smaller TV deal and pocket more money per team.

When the CFA fell apart, the Big 8 and SWC unhappy with what ABC was offering tried to do a joint venture bundling their TV together and found that one joint venture of 16 couldn't produce more than the two league of 8 acting independently but they could pocket more per team by having fewer teams.

In the past 20 years the trend is supposedly bigger is better but the SWC went out of business and now the WAC is out of the football business because sometimes smaller is better.

If there is anything to this, far more likely that they'd go 12 and try to dominate the CFP selection process and if over time other programs emerge that foil that, you absorb them.

Does getting rid of 50% of the MWC and 50% of the AAC really make a stronger football league?

possibly but not significantly.

What does it do for other sports?
it kills it with travel costs.

I addressed how they could solve the travel cost issue in a previous post of mine in this thread. It is possible but in order to do that they would need new rules that the Majors likely will pass and they will need More schools not less. Then they can regionalize and split the larger conference into two for all sports other than football. For football they can do the same thing the Majors will be doing. Four divisions that each have a team participate in the conference tournament.

(08-13-2013 11:00 AM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(08-13-2013 10:51 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Remember the MWC/WAC16 math and remember the Big8/SWC/Big12 math.

MWC exists because the schools figured out they could go smaller, get a smaller TV deal and pocket more money per team.

When the CFA fell apart, the Big 8 and SWC unhappy with what ABC was offering tried to do a joint venture bundling their TV together and found that one joint venture of 16 couldn't produce more than the two league of 8 acting independently but they could pocket more per team by having fewer teams.

In the past 20 years the trend is supposedly bigger is better but the SWC went out of business and now the WAC is out of the football business because sometimes smaller is better.

If there is anything to this, far more likely that they'd go 12 and try to dominate the CFP selection process and if over time other programs emerge that foil that, you absorb them.

Does getting rid of 50% of the MWC and 50% of the AAC really make a stronger football league?

possibly but not significantly.

What does it do for other sports?
it kills it with travel costs.

That's an argument for 14 or 16. Its also an argument for travel pairs to reduce travel costs on minor sports.

The WAC was an attendance driven league that could never combine itself into divisions that maximized attendance because it split natural pairings that sold tickets.