(07-07-2018 09:26 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 07:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 12:56 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Texas should stay in the B12 because of travel.

I do think expanding the B12 for more inventory makes some sense with the TV numbers they are working with.

Cincinnati and Memphis would build the conference together some and deliver eyeballs in basketball. They are smack in SEC and B12 recruiting grounds which is the competition.

They would make the B12 configuration seem more ACC like with a couple of metro schools and a couple of privates in TCU and Baylor.

They aren't interested in Memphis. I don't think any P5 schools are moving this time around. Pac 12 schools are too tied to California to leave.

This is just my personal opinion the Memphis would be a good addition for the B12.

I realize they didn't rate high in the expansion evaluation.

I think they would too. I think they have a lot of potential. My picks would have been BYU and Memphis. But its clear the Big 12 isn't interested.

UC/UH and/or the Florida twins would be strong investments for the Big 12. All have demonstrated to be P5 schools, athletically, in recent years. If they were able to utilize the Big 12 brand, they would provide a strong ROI for its membership.

(07-07-2018 02:17 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-07-2018 09:26 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(07-06-2018 07:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-05-2018 12:56 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Texas should stay in the B12 because of travel.

I do think expanding the B12 for more inventory makes some sense with the TV numbers they are working with.

Cincinnati and Memphis would build the conference together some and deliver eyeballs in basketball. They are smack in SEC and B12 recruiting grounds which is the competition.

They would make the B12 configuration seem more ACC like with a couple of metro schools and a couple of privates in TCU and Baylor.

They aren't interested in Memphis. I don't think any P5 schools are moving this time around. Pac 12 schools are too tied to California to leave.

This is just my personal opinion the Memphis would be a good addition for the B12.

I realize they didn't rate high in the expansion evaluation.

I think they would too. I think they have a lot of potential. My picks would have been BYU and Memphis. But its clear the Big 12 isn't interested.

Another point is that Memphis apparently doesn't have good ratings. The "A" list schools in the AAC contract were UConn, Temple, Cincinnati and Houston. That is who NBC (whose contract was matched by ESPN) thought the most valuable schools were.

The C-USA-MWC merger never happened and neither will the AAC-MWC merger. Our country's geography isn't changing, folks.

(07-08-2018 06:26 PM)esayem Wrote:  The C-USA-MWC merger never happened and neither will the AAC-MWC merger. Our country's geography isn't changing, folks.

I'd argue the CUSA-MW merger should have happened. It would have likley been a net plus for both groups (it definitely would have been a better outcome for the CUSA legacy teams).

(07-08-2018 06:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 06:26 PM)esayem Wrote:  The C-USA-MWC merger never happened and neither will the AAC-MWC merger. Our country's geography isn't changing, folks.

I'd argue the CUSA-MW merger should have happened. It would have likley been a net plus for both groups (it definitely would have been a better outcome for the CUSA legacy teams).

Going bigger is a plus for basketball.

If the quality is going to be 2 NCAA tournament teams per 10, having 20 teams means you'll send 4 into the NCAA tournament. There is a lot more prestige attached to a conference that places 4 into the NCAA tourney rather than 2 which would translate into future recruiting.

(07-08-2018 06:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 06:26 PM)esayem Wrote:  The C-USA-MWC merger never happened and neither will the AAC-MWC merger. Our country's geography isn't changing, folks.

I'd argue the CUSA-MW merger should have happened. It would have likley been a net plus for both groups (it definitely would have been a better outcome for the CUSA legacy teams).

Well, we’ve seen a non-power conference stretch itself too thin and splinter after only a few years. So the facts aren’t really supporting any incentive to do that.

(07-08-2018 09:23 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 06:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 06:26 PM)esayem Wrote:  The C-USA-MWC merger never happened and neither will the AAC-MWC merger. Our country's geography isn't changing, folks.

I'd argue the CUSA-MW merger should have happened. It would have likley been a net plus for both groups (it definitely would have been a better outcome for the CUSA legacy teams).

Well, we’ve seen a non-power conference stretch itself too thin and splinter after only a few years. So the facts aren’t really supporting any incentive to do that.

CUSA went from 1.4 million a team to $200K a team. Hard to imagine how it could have been any worse.

(07-09-2018 12:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 09:23 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 06:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 06:26 PM)esayem Wrote:  The C-USA-MWC merger never happened and neither will the AAC-MWC merger. Our country's geography isn't changing, folks.

I'd argue the CUSA-MW merger should have happened. It would have likley been a net plus for both groups (it definitely would have been a better outcome for the CUSA legacy teams).

Well, we’ve seen a non-power conference stretch itself too thin and splinter after only a few years. So the facts aren’t really supporting any incentive to do that.

CUSA went from 1.4 million a team to $200K a team. Hard to imagine how it could have been any worse.

G5'ers like to look at the percentage change but its really only a 1.2 million per year reduction.

AAC fans are real proud of their 2 million a year deal, best in the G5. But against an average conference budget of over 50 million its not big doings IMO.

(07-09-2018 06:42 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 12:48 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 09:23 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 06:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 06:26 PM)esayem Wrote:  The C-USA-MWC merger never happened and neither will the AAC-MWC merger. Our country's geography isn't changing, folks.

I'd argue the CUSA-MW merger should have happened. It would have likley been a net plus for both groups (it definitely would have been a better outcome for the CUSA legacy teams).

Well, we’ve seen a non-power conference stretch itself too thin and splinter after only a few years. So the facts aren’t really supporting any incentive to do that.

CUSA went from 1.4 million a team to $200K a team. Hard to imagine how it could have been any worse.

G5'ers like to look at the percentage change but its really only a 1.2 million per year reduction.

AAC fans are real proud of their 2 million a year deal, best in the G5. But against an average conference budget of over 50 million its not big doings IMO.

I hope you were joking about AAC fans be "real proud " of our 2mil per year deal because I think that would kill all of your credibility on this subject, but hey if you can pull up any such thread I'll gladly eat my words. I can assure you that our 2mil deal was a disappointment then and is now and everything that we've done as a conference has been to rectify that situation

(07-08-2018 06:59 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 06:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 06:26 PM)esayem Wrote:  The C-USA-MWC merger never happened and neither will the AAC-MWC merger. Our country's geography isn't changing, folks.

I'd argue the CUSA-MW merger should have happened. It would have likley been a net plus for both groups (it definitely would have been a better outcome for the CUSA legacy teams).

Going bigger is a plus for basketball.

If the quality is going to be 2 NCAA tournament teams per 10, having 20 teams means you'll send 4 into the NCAA tournament. There is a lot more prestige attached to a conference that places 4 into the NCAA tourney rather than 2 which would translate into future recruiting.

Which is better - two 10 team conferences with one NCAA bid each, or one 20 team conference with one bid total? That may be a slight exaggeration, but I'd guess that there would only be one bid more often than there would be four bids.

(07-09-2018 11:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 06:59 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 06:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 06:26 PM)esayem Wrote:  The C-USA-MWC merger never happened and neither will the AAC-MWC merger. Our country's geography isn't changing, folks.

I'd argue the CUSA-MW merger should have happened. It would have likley been a net plus for both groups (it definitely would have been a better outcome for the CUSA legacy teams).

Going bigger is a plus for basketball.

If the quality is going to be 2 NCAA tournament teams per 10, having 20 teams means you'll send 4 into the NCAA tournament. There is a lot more prestige attached to a conference that places 4 into the NCAA tourney rather than 2 which would translate into future recruiting.

Which is better - two 10 team conferences with one NCAA bid each, or one 20 team conference with one bid total? That may be a slight exaggeration, but I'd guess that there would only be one bid more often than there would be four bids.

They should have done the merger but remained two conferences. They could combine administrative functions and TV contracts. But then, maybe it wasn't beneficial for the MWC to do it with what remained of CUSA. A CUSA-MAC merger might have been beneficial for both if the MAC hadn't just signed a TV deal to 2027. The MAC may be killing itself with too many T-W games. A made for TV program does not generate the ties of actually having people in the stands. NIU has done very well on the field the past few years, but their stands are emptying out.

The MAC's TV started the T/W games in 2004, but it has massively expanded. (http://www.daily-chronicle.com/2017/11/1...ayxtwo3/).

There's been a slight downward trend in attendance, but it becomes significant when you exclude the 3 historically dismal attendance schools (Kent, EMU, Akron). The first column is the average for the 12 current members by year. The second column excludes those 3.

2017 15,323 15,154
2016 15,877 16,846
2015 15,710 16,996
2014 15,352 16,276
2013 16,530 17,715
2012 15,125 16,714
2011 15,829 17,596
2010 15,318 15,733
2009 16,156 17,330
2008 16,906 17,660
2007 15,345 16,806
2006 17,886 18,412
2005 14,309 16,549
2004 16,738 17,527
2003 16,742 18,590
2002 15,988 17,711
2001 16,693 18,648
2000 15,116 17,028
1999 15,953 18,442
1998 16,000 18,208

(07-09-2018 12:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-09-2018 11:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 06:59 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 06:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-08-2018 06:26 PM)esayem Wrote:  The C-USA-MWC merger never happened and neither will the AAC-MWC merger. Our country's geography isn't changing, folks.

I'd argue the CUSA-MW merger should have happened. It would have likley been a net plus for both groups (it definitely would have been a better outcome for the CUSA legacy teams).

Going bigger is a plus for basketball.

If the quality is going to be 2 NCAA tournament teams per 10, having 20 teams means you'll send 4 into the NCAA tournament. There is a lot more prestige attached to a conference that places 4 into the NCAA tourney rather than 2 which would translate into future recruiting.

Which is better - two 10 team conferences with one NCAA bid each, or one 20 team conference with one bid total? That may be a slight exaggeration, but I'd guess that there would only be one bid more often than there would be four bids.

They should have done the merger but remained two conferences. They could combine administrative functions and TV contracts. But then, maybe it wasn't beneficial for the MWC to do it with what remained of CUSA. A CUSA-MAC merger might have been beneficial for both if the MAC hadn't just signed a TV deal to 2027. The MAC may be killing itself with too many T-W games. A made for TV program does not generate the ties of actually having people in the stands. NIU has done very well on the field the past few years, but their stands are emptying out.

The MAC's TV started the T/W games in 2004, but it has massively expanded. (http://www.daily-chronicle.com/2017/11/1...ayxtwo3/).

There's been a slight downward trend in attendance, but it becomes significant when you exclude the 3 historically dismal attendance schools (Kent, EMU, Akron). The first column is the average for the 12 current members by year. The second column excludes those 3.

2017 15,323 15,154
2016 15,877 16,846
2015 15,710 16,996
2014 15,352 16,276
2013 16,530 17,715
2012 15,125 16,714
2011 15,829 17,596
2010 15,318 15,733
2009 16,156 17,330
2008 16,906 17,660
2007 15,345 16,806
2006 17,886 18,412
2005 14,309 16,549
2004 16,738 17,527
2003 16,742 18,590
2002 15,988 17,711
2001 16,693 18,648
2000 15,116 17,028
1999 15,953 18,442
1998 16,000 18,208

The best route would have been one becoming an olympic sports conference. So, one division (say CUSA) would become football only members of the MW. CUSA would continue as a olympic sports conference. That way the NCAA auto bid situation remains unchanged and olympic sports would require no more travel than they do today.

WAC would have stayed in place if they would have kicked Idaho to the curb, and merge MVFC to become a WAC FBS conference still.
Montana and Montana State did not want to join the WAC. There were not really any history beside UNR, Idaho, Utah State and Boise State. They had more history with the MWC with Wyoming, Utah, BYU, New Mexico and Colorado State. At that time, MWC is more academically along their lines than the WAC. Since Utah and BYU are gone, the MWC is still a much stronger academically except for UNLV and San Jose State, than the WAC. I bet if the Montana twins got a MWC invite back in 2010? They would have said yes.