If you look around FBS and FCS the following schools reside in football playing conferences but don’t sponsor football in the league:

AAC: Wich St
SBC: UTA, UALR

Southland: TAMU CC, UNO
OVC: SIU-E, Belmont, Morehead St
SoCon: UNC-G
Big South: Presbyterian, Winthrop, USC-Upstate, High Point, Radford, Longwood, UNC-A
Patriot: Boston U, Loyola, American
CAA: Hofstra, N’eastern, Drexel, C of Charleston, UNC-W
NEC: St Francis (NY), Mt St Mary’s, F-D
MEAC: Coppin St, UMES

My question is this, should these non football schools, particularly those in conferences where 25% or fewer members are non football, be expected to perform stronger in men’s basketball?

To me, the non football schools, if not making the same shared investment in a football program, ought to earning their way in the other revenue sport. If they aren’t a decent basketball school what’s the point of keeping them around?

Where would a fair benchmark be? Meeting a certain average RPI in a given rolling period (3 years?) Finishing in the top 3rd of the conference rankings once every 3 years?

What are your thoughts?

(04-26-2020 01:41 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If you look around FBS and FCS the following schools reside in football playing conferences but don’t sponsor football in the league:

AAC: Wich St
SBC: UTA, UALR

Southland: TAMU CC, UNO
OVC: SIU-E, Belmont, Morehead St
SoCon: UNC-G
Big South: Presbyterian, Winthrop, USC-Upstate, High Point, Radford, Longwood, UNC-A
Patriot: Boston U, Loyola, American
CAA: Hofstra, N’eastern, Drexel, C of Charleston, UNC-W
NEC: St Francis (NY), Mt St Mary’s, F-D
MEAC: Coppin St, UMES

My question is this, should these non football schools, particularly those in conferences where 25% or fewer members are non football, be expected to perform stronger in men’s basketball?

To me, the non football schools, if not making the same shared investment in a football program, ought to earning their way in the other revenue sport. If they aren’t a decent basketball school what’s the point of keeping them around?

Where would a fair benchmark be? Meeting a certain average RPI in a given rolling period (3 years?) Finishing in the top 3rd of the conference rankings once every 3 years?

What are your thoughts?

I think there would need to be a balance. For example, as a SBC fan, I want Little Rock and UTA to be decent in basketball. Hopefully they’re getting some OOC wins and help the NET/RPI of the league. But at the same time, I don’t want them taking the auto-bid every year. Would the other SBC schools invest in hoops to compete? Or would they continue to pour more resources in football?

At the same time, if Little Rock and UTA were really good, would they want in the SBC? If I were a Trojan or Maverick fan I would be expecting to compete for the championship every year and going to the NCAA Tournament on a regular basis. In that sense a school like UTA is underachieving- despite UTA having some good squads over the past 5-6 years.

In how many FCS conferences is football a big revenue maker? In a given sports year, I'm more likely to know who won an FCS conference's men's basketball tournament than who won their football automatic bid to the FCS tournament. UMBC beat Virginia in the biggest upset ever, UMBC football can win the FCS championship and most of us won't even care. By that logic I would say not playing football in an FCS conference shouldn't be a liability. Now for the AAC or Sun Belt that's a different story since those schools do make a significant amount on football that schools like Wichita State, Texas Arlington, and Arkansas-Little Rock can't make so your question is valid in that case. I might go with a lower threshold than 20%, maybe 10%. Of course I'm not big on football. Some schools suck in football. Is having a bad football team that much better than not having a football team?

I think Little Rock and UTA have pulled their weight in basketball. Little Rock got an NCAA tournament win and UTA had a team that made a deep NIT run that should've been in the NCAAs.

Though I don't think that kicking them out is an option TBH because they make travel partnerships set up nicely.

(04-26-2020 01:41 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If you look around FBS and FCS the following schools reside in football playing conferences but don’t sponsor football in the league:

AAC: Wich St
SBC: UTA, UALR

Southland: TAMU CC, UNO
OVC: SIU-E, Belmont, Morehead St
SoCon: UNC-G
Big South: Presbyterian, Winthrop, USC-Upstate, High Point, Radford, Longwood, UNC-A
Patriot: Boston U, Loyola, American
CAA: Hofstra, N’eastern, Drexel, C of Charleston, UNC-W
NEC: St Francis (NY), Mt St Mary’s, F-D
MEAC: Coppin St, UMES

My question is this, should these non football schools, particularly those in conferences where 25% or fewer members are non football, be expected to perform stronger in men’s basketball?

To me, the non football schools, if not making the same shared investment in a football program, ought to earning their way in the other revenue sport. If they aren’t a decent basketball school what’s the point of keeping them around?

Where would a fair benchmark be? Meeting a certain average RPI in a given rolling period (3 years?) Finishing in the top 3rd of the conference rankings once every 3 years?

What are your thoughts?

Notre Dame, Army, Navy...

CofC and UNCW are the two strongest basketball schools in the CAA. Hofstra and Northeastern also more than pull their own weight. The last 6 conference basketball tournaments have been won by one of those 4.

(04-26-2020 04:35 PM)sctvman Wrote:  CofC and UNCW are the two strongest basketball schools in the CAA. Hofstra and Northeastern also more than pull their own weight. The last 6 conference basketball tournaments have been won by one of those 4.

Plus the CAA and CAA Football are distinct conferences anyway

(04-26-2020 01:41 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If you look around FBS and FCS the following schools reside in football playing conferences but don’t sponsor football in the league:

AAC: Wich St
SBC: UTA, UALR

Southland: TAMU CC, UNO
OVC: SIU-E, Belmont, Morehead St
SoCon: UNC-G
Big South: Presbyterian, Winthrop, USC-Upstate, High Point, Radford, Longwood, UNC-A
Patriot: Boston U, Loyola, American
CAA: Hofstra, N’eastern, Drexel, C of Charleston, UNC-W
NEC: St Francis (NY), Mt St Mary’s, F-D
MEAC: Coppin St, UMES

My question is this, should these non football schools, particularly those in conferences where 25% or fewer members are non football, be expected to perform stronger in men’s basketball?

To me, the non football schools, if not making the same shared investment in a football program, ought to earning their way in the other revenue sport. If they aren’t a decent basketball school what’s the point of keeping them around?

Where would a fair benchmark be? Meeting a certain average RPI in a given rolling period (3 years?) Finishing in the top 3rd of the conference rankings once every 3 years?

What are your thoughts?

You forgot one.
ACC: Notre Dame

(04-26-2020 02:23 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(04-26-2020 01:41 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If you look around FBS and FCS the following schools reside in football playing conferences but don’t sponsor football in the league:

AAC: Wich St
SBC: UTA, UALR

Southland: TAMU CC, UNO
OVC: SIU-E, Belmont, Morehead St
SoCon: UNC-G
Big South: Presbyterian, Winthrop, USC-Upstate, High Point, Radford, Longwood, UNC-A
Patriot: Boston U, Loyola, American
CAA: Hofstra, N’eastern, Drexel, C of Charleston, UNC-W
NEC: St Francis (NY), Mt St Mary’s, F-D
MEAC: Coppin St, UMES

My question is this, should these non football schools, particularly those in conferences where 25% or fewer members are non football, be expected to perform stronger in men’s basketball?

To me, the non football schools, if not making the same shared investment in a football program, ought to earning their way in the other revenue sport. If they aren’t a decent basketball school what’s the point of keeping them around?

Where would a fair benchmark be? Meeting a certain average RPI in a given rolling period (3 years?) Finishing in the top 3rd of the conference rankings once every 3 years?

What are your thoughts?

Notre Dame, Army, Navy...

slightly different arrangements there...so I didn’t count them

(04-26-2020 04:44 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(04-26-2020 04:35 PM)sctvman Wrote:  CofC and UNCW are the two strongest basketball schools in the CAA. Hofstra and Northeastern also more than pull their own weight. The last 6 conference basketball tournaments have been won by one of those 4.

Plus the CAA and CAA Football are distinct conferences anyway

Where did this misinformation come from? Football is a conference sponsored sport. This is not the same arrangement as the MVFC and MVC.

(04-26-2020 04:35 PM)sctvman Wrote:  CofC and UNCW are the two strongest basketball schools in the CAA. Hofstra and Northeastern also more than pull their own weight. The last 6 conference basketball tournaments have been won by one of those 4.

The non fb schools hold their own but that can’t be said of all of these.

(04-26-2020 06:30 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-26-2020 04:44 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(04-26-2020 04:35 PM)sctvman Wrote:  CofC and UNCW are the two strongest basketball schools in the CAA. Hofstra and Northeastern also more than pull their own weight. The last 6 conference basketball tournaments have been won by one of those 4.

Plus the CAA and CAA Football are distinct conferences anyway

Where did this misinformation come from? Football is a conference sponsored sport. This is not the same arrangement as the MVFC and MVC.

Pretty sure CAA Football is a stand-alone single-sport conference.

I agree with Schmolik, this isn't a question to ask for FCS conferences. Decide whether playing football is mandatory or not, if it is not, then there's no particular reason for putting the non-FB schools through some formula that the FB schools do not have to go through, since for all of them the NCAA Tourney is the highest profile representation they are aiming at.

Now the question can be raised for the FBS conferences, but I wouldn't favor it there either. If there is some performance bar that a conference member has to clear in order to stay in the conference, then that should apply to all members.

(04-26-2020 04:44 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(04-26-2020 04:35 PM)sctvman Wrote:  CofC and UNCW are the two strongest basketball schools in the CAA. Hofstra and Northeastern also more than pull their own weight. The last 6 conference basketball tournaments have been won by one of those 4.

Plus the CAA and CAA Football are distinct conferences anyway

They (CofC/UNCW) also both tend to be very good at baseball, there's more sports than just football and basketball

(04-26-2020 07:30 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  I agree with Schmolik, this isn't a question to ask for FCS conferences. Decide whether playing football is mandatory or not, if it is not, then there's no particular reason for putting the non-FB schools through some formula that the FB schools do not have to go through, since for all of them the NCAA Tourney is the highest profile representation they are aiming at.

Now the question can be raised for the FBS conferences, but I wouldn't favor it there either. If there is some performance bar that a conference member has to clear in order to stay in the conference, then that should apply to all members.

Let me be clear, I’m not for imposing this across the board. It should be an internal policy within each conference that they decide. I’m just curious how fans from how fans from hybrid leagues feel about their conference mates that don’t participate in the conference’s chief revenue sport.

(04-26-2020 06:30 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-26-2020 04:44 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(04-26-2020 04:35 PM)sctvman Wrote:  CofC and UNCW are the two strongest basketball schools in the CAA. Hofstra and Northeastern also more than pull their own weight. The last 6 conference basketball tournaments have been won by one of those 4.

Plus the CAA and CAA Football are distinct conferences anyway

Where did this misinformation come from? Football is a conference sponsored sport. This is not the same arrangement as the MVFC and MVC.

CAA Football is a single-sport conference under the administration of the CAA

https://caasports.com/sports/2014/5/16/caabio.aspx

(04-26-2020 07:19 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(04-26-2020 06:30 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-26-2020 04:44 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(04-26-2020 04:35 PM)sctvman Wrote:  CofC and UNCW are the two strongest basketball schools in the CAA. Hofstra and Northeastern also more than pull their own weight. The last 6 conference basketball tournaments have been won by one of those 4.

Plus the CAA and CAA Football are distinct conferences anyway

Where did this misinformation come from? Football is a conference sponsored sport. This is not the same arrangement as the MVFC and MVC.

Pretty sure CAA Football is a stand-alone single-sport conference.

Yes and no. CAA Football is technically a separate conference, but it's run by and managed entirely by the CAA, Joe D'Antonio is the commissioner of both. I would guess it's some sort of paperwork/legal thing, but they're technically separate conferences, though for any practical sense it's one conference.

(04-26-2020 09:00 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  

(04-26-2020 07:19 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(04-26-2020 06:30 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-26-2020 04:44 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(04-26-2020 04:35 PM)sctvman Wrote:  CofC and UNCW are the two strongest basketball schools in the CAA. Hofstra and Northeastern also more than pull their own weight. The last 6 conference basketball tournaments have been won by one of those 4.

Plus the CAA and CAA Football are distinct conferences anyway

Where did this misinformation come from? Football is a conference sponsored sport. This is not the same arrangement as the MVFC and MVC.

Pretty sure CAA Football is a stand-alone single-sport conference.

Yes and no. CAA Football is technically a separate conference, but it's run by and managed entirely by the CAA, Joe D'Antonio is the commissioner of both. I would guess it's some sort of paperwork/legal thing, but they're technically separate conferences, though for any practical sense it's one conference.

It doesn't really matter whether they share a commissioner, being a full member with all voting and rights privileges is a much more stable position to be in than an affiliate of a conference you aren't a full member of (and thus droppable). Whose name is at the top of the letterhead is window dressing.

Would it make sense for those schools in Patriot, CAA and NEC to band together in a bball only conference?

(04-26-2020 09:25 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(04-26-2020 09:00 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  

(04-26-2020 07:19 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(04-26-2020 06:30 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(04-26-2020 04:44 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  Plus the CAA and CAA Football are distinct conferences anyway

Where did this misinformation come from? Football is a conference sponsored sport. This is not the same arrangement as the MVFC and MVC.

Pretty sure CAA Football is a stand-alone single-sport conference.

Yes and no. CAA Football is technically a separate conference, but it's run by and managed entirely by the CAA, Joe D'Antonio is the commissioner of both. I would guess it's some sort of paperwork/legal thing, but they're technically separate conferences, though for any practical sense it's one conference.

It doesn't really matter whether they share a commissioner, being a full member with all voting and rights privileges is a much more stable position to be in than an affiliate of a conference you aren't a full member of (and thus droppable). Whose name is at the top of the letterhead is window dressing.

I'm actually not sure how exactly it works for the CAA, but I think it's basically one conference, and I'm not sure the football only members actually have much influence. Like, the conference used the money from our "TV" deal on Flo sports for football and paid CBS to televise some CAA basketball games. I can't imagine the football only schools would have been too supportive of that.