(05-28-2018 02:29 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 04:10 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 02:31 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  so wac 16 did work
CFB hierarcy wouldn't let it grow

Probably...it’s ironic that a conference with that solid lineup, Utah, BYU, TCU, Air Force, San Diego St etc wasn’t included in the country club but a conference with Rutgers, Temple, Pitt, BC, Syracuse was.... unfair, let’s be honest: The WAC got hosed.

What? Utah and SDSU had done nothing before the turn of the century. TCU was left out of the Big 8 merger for a reason.

The best thing the WAC had going for it was big markets and especially state flagships/land grants.

Right. When you go back to 1998, the Big East was closer in quality to the ACC than it was to the WAC or Conference-USA (which were nearly identical in overall strength). You could argue that the Big East should have been on the outside looking in, I guess, but not that the Big East being meant that others should have been as well.

(05-27-2018 07:48 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 02:31 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  so wac 16 did work
CFB hierarcy wouldn't let it grow

Wrong on both. It didn’t work, and the “CFB hierarchy” had nothing to do with it.

The core of the problem was that a 16-team league divided into 4x4 groups (“pods”) could only allow for 3 guaranteed annual opponents. Yet there was a group of 5 or 6 teams that wanted to play each other every year. If all 5 or 6 of those teams had been clustered on the western or eastern side of the league, they could’ve split 2x8, but they were in the geographic middle. So if you had put them all in the same division, then you’ve got Rice and La. Tech in the same division as (say) Hawaii and San Jose State.

A 16-team league could work but a lot of different variables all have to be rowing in the same direction.

Um Louisiana Tech was not in the WAC 16.

(05-26-2018 08:02 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  CUSA could work as 16 team conference how its set up now.

I don't think so. C-USA 2018 looks more like the WAC-16. Four central programs (UAB, Southern Mississippi, Middle Tennessee, and Western Kentucky) can't stay together. West has five solid (UTEP, UTSA, Rice, North Texas, and Louisiana Tech). The remaining five are solid East (Charlotte, FIU, FAU, Marshall, and Old Dominion). How do you add two, maintain per school revenue, and divide?

(05-27-2018 07:48 AM)esayem Wrote:  Two different conferences is right. The WAC was in a tough position to please all of its schools because there was no obvious division alignment. At the time you had this set-up:

Mountain
BYU
Utah
Wyoming
Colorado State
Air Force
New Mexico
UTEP

Pacific
Hawaii
SDSU
Fresno State

Additions: UNLV, SJSU, TCU, SMU, Rice, Tulsa

In retrospect, the WAC could have added UNLV and TCU and survived. Although, in the mid/late 90's I don't know if TCU had separated themselves from the other Texas schools and Tulsa to be a clear-cut favorite, or did the SWC schools vow to stick together?

BYU
Utah
Wyoming
Colorado State
Air Force
TCU*

UTEP
New Mexico
UNLV*
Fresno State
SDSU
Hawaii

I think there would have been enough cross-division games to ensure every school was happy.

The ADs wanted to add UNLV and TCU only. SMU was still recovering from the death penalty and Rice was and is small.

(05-27-2018 02:21 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 01:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  The ACC, on the other hand, already is two leagues thrown together-the ACC-FSU, GT, Clemson, UNC, NCSU, Duke, WF, UVA and the Big East-Miami, Virginia Tech, Pitt, BC, Syracuse, Louisville and Notre Dame.

Miami and VT are in the pre-expansion ACC footprint and fit better with the pre-expansion ACC than with the old Big East football lineup.

The ACC is a 10 school southern conference with a 5 school annex, and the Big Ten is an 11 school midwestern conference with a 3 school eastern annex. In both cases they've stretched out to try to grab more TV money.

VT fits better with the old ACC, but as they say, "the further south you go in Florida, the further north you get." Miami is a place of its own.

(05-27-2018 06:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 01:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 08:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 08:03 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Almost everything about the expansion of the WAC to 16 schools was weird and ill-advised. There might not be any "lesson" to be learned from such a weird situation, but if there is one it would be that none of today's G5 conferences can get to a P5 revenue level by just expanding. 16 teams didn't work for the WAC then, and it wouldn't work for the AAC or MWC or any other G5 conference today, as Craig Thompson said in that article.

At least they left us a good rule for moving to 16. Rotating half divisions solve a lot of scheduling issues and would work if the conference footprint is reasonably compact.

As the Utah president said, he couldn't figure it out and he came from the U of Michigan.

For the fans, KISS, KISS, KISS.

Rotating divisions is the anti-thesis of that. For 16 to work, it really needs to be two 8 team leagues put together. That can't happen with the Big 10 and SEC. Each has 10 teams that have been together for over half a century, many over a century.

The SEC schools can easily expand to 16. They just need to bring in a pair of old buddies for A&M, Arkansas, and Missouri. And the half division rotations will keep fresh and stable on the home schedule menu. It was only a logistical problem for the WAC Bullet.

Finding 4 team groups in the SEC is even more difficult than in the B1G. The rival of A may be B and B may be C, but A and C never play (think Alabama-Auburn-Georgia for one example). And while LSU might be mollified in a west without Alabama and Auburn, the Mississippi schools absolutely would not be.

(05-27-2018 09:28 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 08:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 07:27 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 06:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 01:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  As the Utah president said, he couldn't figure it out and he came from the U of Michigan.

For the fans, KISS, KISS, KISS.

Rotating divisions is the anti-thesis of that. For 16 to work, it really needs to be two 8 team leagues put together. That can't happen with the Big 10 and SEC. Each has 10 teams that have been together for over half a century, many over a century.

The SEC schools can easily expand to 16. They just need to bring in a pair of old buddies for A&M, Arkansas, and Missouri. And the half division rotations will keep fresh and stable on the home schedule menu. It was only a logistical problem for the WAC Bullet.

I remember Roy Kramer saying if the WAC had given it a little more time he thought they would have eventually been included in the BCS. I think they were on to something and just didn't know it at the time...

The issue was really 4 time zones and travel for the non revenue sports.

Let's say Kansas and Oklahoma joined either the SEC or Big 10. The travel wouldn't be that great for the away half divisions.

In the SEC they would likely be paired with A&M and Missouri

So:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

Every third year Kansas & Oklahoma would be playing 7 games against schools relatively close to home and if they had a permanent rival that would be 8 conference games. 4 of the away games on that year would be reasonable travel. In the two years they play the other half divisions 2 of the 4 away games would bring longer travel. Those who can afford to do that would probably be about the average travel crowd of any SEC school 10 to 15 thousand on the upper end and 5 to 7 thousand on the lower end. They would still have 4 protected games with which to schedule 00C games. So they pick up two P5 games home and home and two lower tier games which are home only. This guarantees 7 home games. The fans get to see a variety of top schools, get the annual home opening rent a kill and a homecoming rent a kill game and get two prime 00C games a year one at home.

It's not only very doable it is downright practical.

So the RRR could still be played for OU and OSU could still be on the slate.

The only real thing that changes outside of keeping their 00C rivals and selecting a permanent in conference one is the selection of other conference games to be played. And there having Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, and South Carolina rotate through along with Missouri, Arkansas, L.S.U. and the Mississippi schools would be a site better than Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech, and T.C.U.

This exact setup (with the possibility of ok state instead of Kansas) is what I think we’re likely to get in 5-6 year

Alabama/Auburn/Tennessee/Vandy would be too tough to win. Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Ole Miss and Mississippi St. would hate this setup. Don't think Arkansas would be happy either.

(05-28-2018 08:36 AM)Go College Sports Wrote:  

(05-28-2018 02:29 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 04:10 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 02:31 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  so wac 16 did work
CFB hierarcy wouldn't let it grow

Probably...it’s ironic that a conference with that solid lineup, Utah, BYU, TCU, Air Force, San Diego St etc wasn’t included in the country club but a conference with Rutgers, Temple, Pitt, BC, Syracuse was.... unfair, let’s be honest: The WAC got hosed.

What? Utah and SDSU had done nothing before the turn of the century. TCU was left out of the Big 8 merger for a reason.

The best thing the WAC had going for it was big markets and especially state flagships/land grants.

Right. When you go back to 1998, the Big East was closer in quality to the ACC than it was to the WAC or Conference-USA (which were nearly identical in overall strength). You could argue that the Big East should have been on the outside looking in, I guess, but not that the Big East being meant that others should have been as well.

The WAC and CUSA were part of the "autonomy" group. They didn't have "autonomy" then, but they got the same voting rights as the BCS leagues. All 8 had 3 votes. The MAC and Sun Belt got 1.5 votes.

(05-27-2018 07:48 AM)esayem Wrote:  In retrospect, the WAC could have added UNLV and TCU and survived.

Even better, they could have added no one and survived.

(05-27-2018 01:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 05:06 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 04:10 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 02:31 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  so wac 16 did work
CFB hierarcy wouldn't let it grow

Probably...it’s ironic that a conference with that solid lineup, Utah, BYU, TCU, Air Force, San Diego St etc wasn’t included in the country club but a conference with Rutgers, Temple, Pitt, BC, Syracuse was.... unfair, let’s be honest: The WAC got hosed.

A large reason for that was Miami

Exactly.

You could make the same argument that the biggest reason the ACC got in the club when it did was Florida State. The bowl alliance was about assuring the bowls that they would get teams that were potential national championship contenders. Without Miami and FSU they ACC and BE couldn't deliver Top Ten teams with any consistency. Eventually, other teams in those leagues grew into potential contenders. But without a "tentpole", which the WAC always lacked, entry into the club would be unlikely.

(05-28-2018 10:24 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 09:28 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 08:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 07:27 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(05-27-2018 06:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The SEC schools can easily expand to 16. They just need to bring in a pair of old buddies for A&M, Arkansas, and Missouri. And the half division rotations will keep fresh and stable on the home schedule menu. It was only a logistical problem for the WAC Bullet.

I remember Roy Kramer saying if the WAC had given it a little more time he thought they would have eventually been included in the BCS. I think they were on to something and just didn't know it at the time...

The issue was really 4 time zones and travel for the non revenue sports.

Let's say Kansas and Oklahoma joined either the SEC or Big 10. The travel wouldn't be that great for the away half divisions.

In the SEC they would likely be paired with A&M and Missouri

So:
Arkansas, Louisiana State, Mississippi, Mississippi State

Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M

Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina

Every third year Kansas & Oklahoma would be playing 7 games against schools relatively close to home and if they had a permanent rival that would be 8 conference games. 4 of the away games on that year would be reasonable travel. In the two years they play the other half divisions 2 of the 4 away games would bring longer travel. Those who can afford to do that would probably be about the average travel crowd of any SEC school 10 to 15 thousand on the upper end and 5 to 7 thousand on the lower end. They would still have 4 protected games with which to schedule 00C games. So they pick up two P5 games home and home and two lower tier games which are home only. This guarantees 7 home games. The fans get to see a variety of top schools, get the annual home opening rent a kill and a homecoming rent a kill game and get two prime 00C games a year one at home.

It's not only very doable it is downright practical.

So the RRR could still be played for OU and OSU could still be on the slate.

The only real thing that changes outside of keeping their 00C rivals and selecting a permanent in conference one is the selection of other conference games to be played. And there having Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Auburn, Alabama, and South Carolina rotate through along with Missouri, Arkansas, L.S.U. and the Mississippi schools would be a site better than Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas Tech, and T.C.U.

This exact setup (with the possibility of ok state instead of Kansas) is what I think we’re likely to get in 5-6 year

Alabama/Auburn/Tennessee/Vandy would be too tough to win. Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Ole Miss and Mississippi St. would hate this setup. Don't think Arkansas would be happy either.

Why would that one be too tough to win? Each school would be more likely to win than they are currently in their 7 team division.

Besides, at this point Tennessee is essentially a .500 program

Read an article from 1999 that stated TCU and SMU were almost certainly a package deal to C-USA to get the league a conference title game and capture the Dallas/Ft. Worth market. At the last minute the presidents got cold feet and SMU wasn’t extended an invite. It’s amazing I’m still finding out info I never knew. I wonder if they would have done like the AAC and shift Army to the west?

I’ve also read that Houston was never on the WAC’s radar when they went to 16. It seemed UH was pretty up-front in that they wanted to be in an eastern leaning conference.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/7196...gshot.html


Third article down:
http://www.skiff.tcu.edu/skiffweb101299/Sports.html

Could a possible line-up have been?

East: Cincinnati, Louisville, ECU, USF, UAB, Memphis

West: Army, S. Miss, Tulane, Houston, SMU, TCU

Interestingly, Rice would have been left behind in 1999, much like a few years back regarding the AAC.

(05-28-2018 10:05 AM)ESE84 Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 08:02 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  CUSA could work as 16 team conference how its set up now.

I don't think so. C-USA 2018 looks more like the WAC-16. Four central programs (UAB, Southern Mississippi, Middle Tennessee, and Western Kentucky) can't stay together. West has five solid (UTEP, UTSA, Rice, North Texas, and Louisiana Tech). The remaining five are solid East (Charlotte, FIU, FAU, Marshall, and Old Dominion). How do you add two, maintain per school revenue, and divide?

To me, the modern C-USA feels like two conferences. I'd rather see the two sides split and each add 3 members to create a pair of 10 team leagues.

(05-29-2018 05:15 PM)esayem Wrote:  https://www.deseretnews.com/article/7196...gshot.html


Third article down:
http://www.skiff.tcu.edu/skiffweb101299/Sports.html

Could a possible line-up have been?

East: Cincinnati, Louisville, ECU, USF, UAB, Memphis

West: Army, S. Miss, Tulane, Houston, SMU, TCU

Interestingly, Rice would have been left behind in 1999, much like a few years back regarding the AAC.

It always struck me as odd that 3 of the SWC refugees fled West. It would have been cool to see the SWC derail the C-USA merger by pulling the football schools (and maybe toss in Tulsa) into their conference.

(05-29-2018 12:08 PM)esayem Wrote:  Read an article from 1999 that stated TCU and SMU were almost certainly a package deal to C-USA to get the league a conference title game and capture the Dallas/Ft. Worth market. At the last minute the presidents got cold feet and SMU wasn’t extended an invite. It’s amazing I’m still finding out info I never knew. I wonder if they would have done like the AAC and shift Army to the west?

I’ve also read that Houston was never on the WAC’s radar when they went to 16. It seemed UH was pretty up-front in that they wanted to be in an eastern leaning conference.

It was SMU’s idea. They convinced TCU to go as a package deal to C-USA but they were left at the altar. To me that was the beginning (along with beating USC in the Sun Bowl) of TCU separating from SMU. At this exact time 20 years ago, they were identical. Now the Frogs are in the P5 while the Mustangs are in G5 purgatory.

(05-29-2018 09:49 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 12:08 PM)esayem Wrote:  Read an article from 1999 that stated TCU and SMU were almost certainly a package deal to C-USA to get the league a conference title game and capture the Dallas/Ft. Worth market. At the last minute the presidents got cold feet and SMU wasn’t extended an invite. It’s amazing I’m still finding out info I never knew. I wonder if they would have done like the AAC and shift Army to the west?

I’ve also read that Houston was never on the WAC’s radar when they went to 16. It seemed UH was pretty up-front in that they wanted to be in an eastern leaning conference.

It was SMU’s idea. They convinced TCU to go as a package deal to C-USA but they were left at the altar. To me that was the beginning (along with beating USC in the Sun Bowl) of TCU separating from SMU. At this exact time 20 years ago, they were identical. Now the Frogs are in the P5 while the Mustangs are in G5 purgatory.

TCU pumped 100’s of millions into their program and were incredibly proactive, we were not

(05-30-2018 07:06 AM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 09:49 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(05-29-2018 12:08 PM)esayem Wrote:  Read an article from 1999 that stated TCU and SMU were almost certainly a package deal to C-USA to get the league a conference title game and capture the Dallas/Ft. Worth market. At the last minute the presidents got cold feet and SMU wasn’t extended an invite. It’s amazing I’m still finding out info I never knew. I wonder if they would have done like the AAC and shift Army to the west?

I’ve also read that Houston was never on the WAC’s radar when they went to 16. It seemed UH was pretty up-front in that they wanted to be in an eastern leaning conference.

It was SMU’s idea. They convinced TCU to go as a package deal to C-USA but they were left at the altar. To me that was the beginning (along with beating USC in the Sun Bowl) of TCU separating from SMU. At this exact time 20 years ago, they were identical. Now the Frogs are in the P5 while the Mustangs are in G5 purgatory.

TCU pumped 100’s of millions into their program and were incredibly proactive, we were not

Let's face it: You guys still have the stigma of the Death Penalty in football. Thirty years and counting, I'm not sure it's ever going to go away?

Here's an old piece from 1994 when the expansion news broke. You have to wonder what they were thinking if this passage is in fact true. If you make the same for 10 as you do for 16---why go to 16? Sounds like going to 12 was the only move that might pay off (and thats only if the CCG paid enough for all existing members to break even or better).

A new football television contract, which according to wire service reports is close to $25 million for five years, is in the process of being finalized, outgoing commissioner Joe Kearney said. He also stated that the dollar figure is the same whether the league has 10 or 16 schools. There will be additional money for a playoff game.


https://www.deseretnews.com/article/3488...TO-16.html


Also ran across an article discussing who really killed the SWC. The article's premise is that while the exits of Texas, A&M, Tech, and Baylor seriously maimed the SWC---it was the remaining teams that actually killed it by not rebuilding. It expains that there were some pretty decent options from which to rebuild had Rice, Houston, SMU, and TCU worked together on the project. The interesting add on to the article is this---did the same decision to let the SWC die also essentially lead to the death of WAC football? lol...are Houston, SMU, TCU, and Rice essentially responsible for the death of 2 conferences? I think maybe they kinda are (of course, I have long advocated the position that those 4 made a HUGE mistake by not rebuilding the SWC).

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/3825...conference

(05-30-2018 09:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Here's an old piece from 1994 when the expansion news broke. You have to wonder what they were thinking if this passage is in fact true. If you make the same for 10 as you do for 16---why go to 16? Sounds like going to 12 was the only move that might pay off (and thats only if the CCG paid enough for all existing members to break even or better).

A new football television contract, which according to wire service reports is close to $25 million for five years, is in the process of being finalized, outgoing commissioner Joe Kearney said. He also stated that the dollar figure is the same whether the league has 10 or 16 schools. There will be additional money for a playoff game.


https://www.deseretnews.com/article/3488...TO-16.html

That Deseret News article is like something written about a train wreck before it happened, and then you read it after the fact and see all the reasons why the wreck happened.

-- "nothing has been settled regarding division alignments"

-- "the dollar figure is the same whether the league has 10 or 16 schools"

-- not enough TV money to give everyone a decent share

-- "The TV market size seemed to be the key for those admitted.... 'San Jose State's entry in the WAC gives us a major presence in the Bay Area.'"

-- "he's not worried about BYU and New Mexico leaving the WAC"