Here is an article about Idaho's plans:

http://idaho.theinsiders.com/2/237697.html

I think this makes sense. Because the only requirement for 1-A is 4 home games (until 2006, then 5) and 15,000 butts in the seats, Idaho can meet the requirement needed. Especially if we are allowed to use a game against WSU as a home game. It looks like our schedule also lets us play at Martin Stadium for a game.

I really hope that CUSA hurries up! I am sick of waiting. ;)

GO VANDALS!!!

After 38 replies on the A-10 board, this proposal still has wings... submitting it here for your consideration and criticism... first post shown here, rest of the discussion available at the given URL link...

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/printthread.php?s=&threadid=79381&perpage=39

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

First, if you're not one who enjoys "what if" speculation, this post is not intended for you... just pass on by.

I'm a Marshall fan with, at worst, a vivid imagination, and at best, a mind for problem-solving... depends on who you talk to.

With that preface, and assuming you have the time to wade through the idea, I have a proposal for an A-10/CUSA agreement that offers a pro-active initiative for the two to cooperate in an unprecedented way, given their individual and common concerns.

Here's how I posted it on a popular CUSA forum:

1. CUSA football expands with Temple, Toledo, NIU, and WMU, plus an alternating-year arrangement with Army and Navy so that each competes for the CUSA title every other year, and plays a national independent schedule every other year (while being eligible for CUSA-affiliated bowls every year)... giving the conference a full-blown presence in the lucrative northeast quandrant of the US.

2. Simulatanouesly, the 14-team (i.e., minus the Army/Navy football slot) CUSA basketball conference signs an agreement with the 14 team (i.e., including Temple) A-10. The four best basketball programs from each will come forward from the two conferences to become the Great Eight Conference.

Every four years, the best program from CUSA and the best from the A-10 will get to graduate to the Great Eight, replacing the two worst programs in the G8 over that period. Great Eight schools will play 14 conference games, and will be committed to play a handful (3 to 5) of OOC games with their original conference. Beyond that, CUSA and A-10 also will have a scheduling agreement for those schools that, in a given year, do not get to play a Great Eight school.

In this arrangement, the A-10 returns to its roots as a ten team league, and CUSA also becomes a ten team league. Both retain their automatic bids, while the Great Eight, though w/o an automatic bid, becomes arguably the most potent league going, possibly boasting over half of its members to be Big Dance invitees.

In terms of revenue shares, members of the Great Eight get to enjoy the fruit of their success. However, CUSA and A-10 schools continue to benefit from the Great Eight's prowess in two ways:

First, the OOC scheduling arrangement portends money to the CUSA and A-10 schools through normal regular season games.

Second, the hybrid conference's tournament would be set-up to alternate between CUSA and A-10 host cities each year--meaning that, for example, one year the Great Eight Tournament and the CUSA Tournament may be going on simultaneously in Memphis, then the next year, the Great Eight and A-10 tournaments may be going on simultaneously in Philadelphia. While the tournaments would be distinct from one another in terms of competition, ticket packages would be sold together, and revenues generated from any tournament would be split evenly among all of the schools participating. This could represent an every-other-year bump in revenue for both conferences, above anything they would ordinarily be able to take in separately under the current state.

####################

Then, here's the addendum...

####################



Yeah... I've been accused of that... it goes with the imaginative territory, so I'm used to it. I'm not one to let conventional thinking or other obstacles cloud my view once a solution has been identified that not only appears to remedy a multitude of problems, but even enhances the product in question.

If I may toot my own horn, I'm a Marshall fan proposing something that [u]isn't even in Marshall's favor. [/u]

But it's what is in the whole CUSA family's interest that I'm proposing here.

And there's nothing proposed that requires new NCAA regulations to accomplish. It can all be done as schools could perceive the benefit to their institution, as they admit what is historically evident (i.e., that the success/demise of the majority of programs in any sport is going to be cyclical), and as they see the synergy (whole greater than individual parts) generated in establishing this format.

We know that Army and Navy are already talking about a scheduling arrangement. Ostensibly, we also know that neither would commit to full membership. But what about a something-in-between that accomplishes what they want to accomplish -- having the opportunity to play a "national" schedule -- yet also entitles them to compete for the CUSA title periodically, and in so doing, fills an important slot in the northeast quadrant group? It's not so much beyond what is already being talked about that it is to be automatically dismissed.

Where Temple is concerned, this works particularly wonderfully. They effectively, at the least get to continue to play all their best A-10 friends, plus they get to compete in an even stronger league (at least at first), plus they get a CUSA football slot. Nothing there that they'd be too unhappy about.

Toledo would be a whole lot more comfortable jumping if they could see stability in it... if they were not on the periphery and could quell the concerns that they could someday fall into a Louisiana Tech-like dilemma. The conference, thus, must establish a footprint, and in adding these schools (or schools like them), that's accomplished.

NIU and WMU are good schools, but they're the interchangeable parts to this equation, along with MiamiU, and conceivably, an eventual UMass D1a football entry.

The A-10 considers this because it keeps Temple in the fold. But moreover, they consider it because establishing the new elite conference establishes a new income stream, effectively opens up an extra NCAA automatic berth (since what would have been a middling school will now win the conference), and maybe most importantly, vaccinates the conference against the potential for future defections since the elite programs would have less reason to be interested in any "new Big East" scheme.

CUSA considers this for practically the same reasons as mentioned for the A-10, and because it legitimately opens up the northeast to their product.

So there's something here that makes a winner out of everyone, or at least, that puts them in a better position than where they're at otherwise.

The only thing that keeps something like this from getting done is people who say "it can't be done"... kinda like when _sturt_ the Astros fan chuckled to himself as people pondered the possibility that Andy Pettitte might be willing to foresake his pinstripes and go home to play in Houston... and the even bigger chuckle when someone said, "wonder if Roger Clemens would come out of retirement to play for the Astros?" I swear it happened last November. I heard those things and I did those things... I wasn't just skeptical, I was a scoffer.

Good ideas have a way of rising to the surface... eventually.

Is there any good idea in this?

Only time will tell.

##################

And one more...

##################




I guess I didn't make it clear that the Great Eight is only intended as a basketball superconference. Pretty important point.

As it would stand today, CUSA and the A-10 would contribute to a Great Eight Conference that might arguably look like this:

- St. Joseph's
- Temple
- Xavier
- Dayton
- Memphis
- Tulsa
- UAB
- Rice

It's not the MAC in terms of geographical proximity, but it's also not that much beyond the distances that schools in the current CUSA already must negotiate.

And I guess I would question how the rivalry thing is that much affected by this(?). The CUSA schools would still play each other for the most part; ditto the A-10.

Football-wise, with four groups of four schools, geographic rivalries obviously are enhanced -- not eroded.

Finally, your presumption that I'm somehow disappointed in CUSA's "standards" is just plain wrong.

Rather, I'm motivated by the premise that the Big East is going to try to shake things up again sometime down the not-too-distant road, and that CUSA would be wise to be pro-active against that threat to its stability. I think you accomplish that in different ways, but all of those ways are about giving your best programs every advantage you can that will allow them to compete for a national title.

The A-10 faces the same "gathering threat" that CUSA does. And alliances of those who share common threats just about always make some amount of sense, whether you're talking about NATO or talking about NCAA sports.

#####################

Thoughts? Positive or negative... likely negative, but all the same, interested in your feedback, fwiw.

It is an interesting Idea, and not without some merit, but ultimately i think it would not happen because it forces 28 schools to reach an agreement where that they will be content if it comes to it to be a member of a second tier conference---even if that is more profitable than what they have today, I can't see 8 presidents agreeing to that, let alone 28.

A more practical idea might be to have CUSA and the A10 put on a pre-conference play tourney between their highest rated teams to be sold to ESPN. This would generate revenue in addition to increasing strength of schedule and media presence.

http://www.tvradioworld.com/region1/wv/tv_information.asp?m=par

I could be mistaken, but I think Athens, OH is in the Parkersburg, WV DMA...#187 with 64K TV sets. I would think at this time that would eliminate them from serious consideration by CUSA.

Toledo and Miami of Ohio certainly make sense from a market perspective, even if they don't fit the footprint. I suspect that they will prove content to remain in the MAC, however. The value of CUSA is simply too debateable at this point.

The only way I see both the A-10 and C-usa surviving is if they along with the MAC and the CAA come to some sort of agreement as far as who goes where. Most of this will be delayed however, since there are a few catholic schools involved in the mix, most if not all of whom will jetison to form a 100% catholic conference 5-7 years down the line when the BE breaks apart again. Right now the safest thing to do in the interests of both the A10 and C-USA is to make sure they stay seperate but create a working relationship. In a perfect world the top 12 market teams, that have football programs as well should join forces to create a new C-USA, and the remaining schools should align themselves with one another as purely a basketball conference. I think the days of schools in more than one conference in different sports is pretty much over. I have to admit that the proposed plan above is rather interesting, but I must admit it could certainly diminishe rivalries for large numbers of years. For instance, if Rice continues to solidify itself as a good bball program and SMU continues to falter, what are the chances of the two of them hooking up on a regular basis, especially in a game with alot of importance. By the time SMU were to improve, who's not to say Rice starts taking a step backward. I think that ultimately a conference lineup full of teams in similar geographic markets and academics is the best thing for all those involved.

Well, we are are referring to C-USA, not the B10, in the sense of marketing. In terms of local media, TV sets, et. al, you delivered a noticeable point, Finite. Athens, is pretty darn rural in a highly populated State. You noted the Parkersburg, WV proximity, which shows the nearness to the home State of Marshall, wherby Marshall in Huntington borders Ohio, and is short mileage to Kentucky. This is more of a footprint thing, rather than examining a school in a major city hundreds of miles away from the closest potential conference opponent.
C-USA----going back to the old Metro bb roots, was (before the latest reconfiguration) primarily schools in big market areas that included Louisville, Cincinnati, Memphis, New Orleans, Houston, Birmingham, Tampa/St. Petersburg, etc. That alone, never assured bonding, glowing revenues, and being on par with more lofty regional conferences.
Auburn, Alabama; Clemson, South Carolina; Starkville, Mississippi, or even State College, Pennsylvania, etc. are not big city dwellers and home to major TV stations. Local media is one factor among others. However, I am not advocating Ohio to C-USA necessarily; just that from a certain angle, they may be given some consideration.

Sturt, you certainly do win style points and points for originality. Kudos to you for thinking this through. Yet allow me to offer a few more issues that your scenario must resolve before moving forward.

- NCAA bids. As you said, your Great Eight conference would (at least in the short term, if not permanently) be without an automatic berth in the NCAA. A tall order for some of these schools, especially those who's play maybe good enough to keep them in that conference but not yet good enough to win.

- Scheduling. Under your scheme there's a 2-4 game difference between conference schedules; 14 games for the G-8, 16-18 games for the A-10 and CUSA. That's asking for a lot of teams to potentially adjust schedules at the last minute when learning of a promotion or relegation.

- This marginalizes the value of the A-10 and CUSA contracts and titles. Are the TV funds from the G-8 shared with all the schools or kept by those who make up that conference? And where's the rush of being second in the A-10 if it really means you're #6 in that league?


Ultimately, each conference will act in it's financial self interest, and I don't think this scenario will truly bear out. You're right to fear that more reshuffling may take place in the future, particularly within range of the BE (IMO). The best protection against that is for schools and conferences to build from within and ensure they have a product the whole of which is greater than the sum of its parts. Gimmicks can only go so far and sometimes suggest salesmanship needed to hide faults that lie within.

My bad, you even stated that it was from that perspective in the original post....

Very poor wording. Let me try again. In this plan 28 presidents in CUSA and the Atlantic 10 would have to agree to let their athletic fortunes annually determine whether they would be in a just sub-big east level conference or a big sky level conference.

Even if it is more profitable, no president is going to say OK, I will accept a 70 % chance that my basketball team is going to be sitting in a conference 2 levels lower than where we are today.

That is a huge drop in esteem. That as much as money is what drives conference realignments.

I welcome that.




First, another poster named Sheg did some homework that showed that 4 of the G8 members would be likely top 60 RPI schools in any given year, and that another 2 would be on the bubble, likely NIT-bound.

Add to that the 1 auto bid for both A10 and CUSA, and the likely 1 or 2 NIT bids, and you have an accumulation of more of these teams getting preseason play.

But maybe more importantly, when you play at the level of competition of these G8 schools, Gunner, auto bids are not really relevant -- the top school is going to be NCAA bound, regardless, and would not be in need of an auto bid.




I'm not sure that I did a real good job explaining the scheduling as I've imagined it. And btw, it can be done in different ways... this just happens to be my favorite.

For the G8 teams, there's 7 home and home against all conference opponents. Total of 14 conference games.

For the A10 and CUSA, I don't endorse divisions per se, but I do endorse geographic "scheduling pods." A given team would play the other 4 in its geographic pod home and home. And, each year they rotate scheduling 1 from the other pod, home and home. Finally, they would play 2 from the other pod away games, and the remaining 2 from the other at home... effectively playing 5 schools home and home, plus 4 games (2 h, 2 a)against the other 4 schools. Total of 14 conference games.

In addition to conference games, there are OOC games, and for 4 of those, the G8 schools are committed to play schools from their original conference, 2 h, 2 a. (Incidentally, two of those may be specified as "rivalry" games that occur with the same two schools every year, though it is presumed that usually they would only designate one of the four as a rivalry game... but this allows teams to continue to compete with their closest rivals regardless of whether they are in the same conference or not.)

Where A10 and CUSA schools are concerned, they too have a commitment to 4 OOC games -- against either G8 schools, which will amount to 1-2 per season, or against teams from the opposite conference.

All told, 14 conference games for each conference; plus 4 automatic commitments for OOC games, which mostly vary from year to year, while keeping rivalries intact.

As for your comment that this might be "asking for a lot of teams to potentially adjust schedules at the last minute when learning of a promotion or relegation"... when you analyze it, I don't think so. Definitely not for the remaining A10 and CUSA teams, since they're actually only going to accomodate games with 2 schools they would not have otherwise.

But would there be a concern for the G8 schools?

As it is, 6 of their conference games were going to be played anyway, so set those aside... not a problem.

Of the 16 conference games that I believe each of the two conferences normally play, that leaves 10; and then there's the 10-11 OOC games.

Watch what happens here.

We've effectively traded OOC games for conference games, and conference games for OOC games. That is to say, the G8 schools now play games with teams that otherwise they would have played OOC; and they now play OOC games with teams that otherwise they would have played in-conference.

So, there's 8 conference games that used to be regarded as OOC; there's 4 OOC games that used to be regarded as in-conference. The net is 4 games, or about 15% of the schedule is effected... not small, but certainly not overwhelming.




A few years back, Marathon Oil and Ashland Oil came together to establish a marketing company. In my part of the country, that marketing company is best known as Speedway, though it also markets under a few other brands like SuperAmerica.

The conditions and concerns of the two companies prompted this deal, in which both profit when this marketing company profits... and it goes without saying that those who are employed by that marketing company profit when their company does well.

That's a good representation of what we have here.

CUSA and A10 have common conditions, and yet, common concerns. In establishing a "hybrid" they put themselves in an advantageous position to profit from the best of their best, while also putting those schools at a heightened postion to profit.

As to the second question about the "rush of being second in the A10 when you're really #6 in that league"... as I'm outlining this, the conference standings you would see in the newspaper would have three distinct conferences, and #2 in the A10 would be #2 in the A10.

And the rush would be that you could conceivably be in contention for an NCAA bid, likely a lock for an NIT bid -- neither of which would be possible, let alone likely, under the current situation.




We agree.

And in this situation, they have a common financial self-interest wherein they can do better together than they can separately.




I disagree.

These are two conferences that are not among the elite, yet considerably above the lesser ones... they are at the mid-line.

CUSA is not a good barometer with the musical chairs there, but the A10 is -- and in its 20 years or so of existence, that conference has never been able to rise above the occasional recognition of a good St. Joe's or, more often, a good Temple or UMass team. To suggest that that conference can somehow rise above by sheer internal will and synergy is to dismiss history.

By the same token, I would argue with the characterization of "gimmick"ery here... what's being proffered is no more of a gimmick than any corporate alliance such as the Marathon/Ashland one I described above. It works for the corporate world under prescribed conditions... and yet no one has thought to apply it to this arena.

Well, until now.

What this proposal does is consolidate the best assets of these two otherwise "good" conferences into one elite conference -- so that, synergistically, they can have access to the blessings of eliteness, with all of the financial rewards, NCAA bids, and added stability benefits that come with that. Not just for the G8, but for all 28 schools involved.

.

I agree about the esteem thing, but I disagree about where you place the respect level for these conferences.

By Sheg's analysis, not my own, 50% of the G8 teams get to the NCAA in an ordinary year, 75% to postseason play.

That's pretty stout, commanding some serious respect.

The sub-Big East, for now, is true; not as true assuming the suspected break-up.

But let's deal with current realities.

Every conference is about to become sub-Big East in baseketball.

No sin in becoming "just under" the Big East given that circumstance.

Now, the A10 and CUSA are, by others' accounts, likely to be 2-bid leagues on average (, 3 in a particularly good year, 1 in a particularly bad one).

Under this proposal, those two will likely become 1 bid leagues, with an occasional opportunity for 2... but where will those schools come from? They'll come from among the schools that, right now, are only in the middle of the pack.

In other words, if I'm a college president of such a school, in giving approval to such an alliance, I've just increased the chances that my school will gain an NCAA bid by about 50% (i.e., 2 bids of 14 or 14% of the conference vs. 6 bids of 28 or 21% of the alliance).

Maybe it's just me, but that seems like a pretty advantageous trade.

And beyond that, I've put my school in a position to (1) incubate in a decent conference, and (2) to be able to credibly aspire to something better... there's new incentive for productivity created... a former middling school now has the opportunity to put itself in the position of conference champion, and the further plaudit of attaining position in one of the elite conferences in the nation given continued success.

I'll agree that people will always cast a skeptical eye on this at first... that can't be helped.

But eventually, upon further inspection, educated people like college presidents will conclude that the net rewards are greater than the rewards accessible in the current system.

.

It may be soon that we hear that North Texas will have an invite to CUSA. Yes, North Texas will accept. Lets see if this source is correct... It does look like NTSU will be the only one to get an invite at this time. Thanks "JustTalk" for the heads up.

North Texas State was one of the five most spoken about. It certainly would fit into C-USA's earlier plans geographically, by plugging NTSU into the old and nearby TCU, spot.

Don't know if it will be true, but if so, LA Tech has no C-USA chance, for now, and no "potential bridge team" with the rest of the WAC. Could end up, though, being nice for Idaho if the WAC decided to go to 10. And, another loss for the Sun Belt, unless La Tech switches to it. Not something they would want to do unless travel expenses got too rough.

Here's your "bridge team".

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Mar/03052004/sports/145043.asp

Watch them qualify tonight for the NCAA tourney on ESPN2