NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:55 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 169 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:15 am 
Offline
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
Quinn wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
Quinn wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
Quinn wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
https://twitter.com/#!/dmrneva...825338879115264

David Roche‏ @ dmrnevada
Follow
Confirmed: ECU Chancellor says # mwc # cusamerger will have a 4 pod system.


According to a post on the CUSA board, this is what ECU's chancellor Ballard said:
If this merger is to be successful a tremendous amount of work remains to be done, but if it is successful it could be a stronger conference, and almost certainly more stable than the old Conference USA. Secondly we're working almost everyday, we're working today, Terry and Nick more than me, on the importance of regional rivalries. I hope our sister members in the new conference stay committed to the principles they've articulated, which would demand we add many more eastern teams, with the goal of ensuring four divisions of geographical proximity. We look forward to playing traditional rivals such as Southern Miss and Marshall, always great rivalries in virtually every sport; but also adding good regional friends and I hope they include Charlotte and Appalachian State. Such regional divisions are not just appropriate, they are the very best thing for us to protect the academic integrity of what we're doing and the success of our student athletes. I do not believe the new conference will work unless these regional rivalries are not just recognized but implemented as a founding part of the new conference.


He'll probably get one of them to help keep ECU and Marshall relevant. Would come at the expense of UNT or FIU.

I'm still not 100% ruling out any kind of UTEP movement IF it's a full merger and not an alliance. But it only works with a move to 22 or 24 schools if USU and SJSU are both set to join before 7/1.

How does 22/24 work better if you have to play everyone in your div. meaning (pod a & b) and (pod c & d) have to play everyone in their "div" according to the NCAA. At 22, 11/11 that's 10 conf games. at 24 12/12 that's 11 conf. games. No way do I see that.


"Better"? My post was about UTEP and that the only way UTEP can go to the "MWC side" of a full merger, would be for Utah St. or SJSU to NOT be invited OR if they expanded beyond 10 each.

With CUSA/MWC visits to UTSA, mentions of Charlotte & App St., Utah St. and SJSU already being visited, North Texas and FIU being mentioned by other school admins, we're talking already 23 total schools in the mix: 16 plus those 7.

So regardless about the specs of you mention about 10 or 11 conference games, I'm thinking that CUSA/MWC have that taken care of at this point, over 2 months into the process, and wouldn't be expanding to 22 or 24 if that were going to be an obstacle.


I'm concerned w/ how smart our leaders think they are. 2 AQ nonsense, semi finals. I'm not so sure they know about the must play everyone in the div. rule. If the NCAA doesn't change it the only way around it is to stay 2 separate leagues and have 2 conf title games w/ a bowl game between the 2 winners.

Just because a school gets mentioned doesn't mean they'll get in. See USU and SJSU last year. See UNA and NKU to the OVC last year. UTPA, UNO, ACU, UIW all mentioned for the SLC, none invited yet, doubt all will either. App St. got mentioned, I don't see how they get in.



One thing to consider is that what is in the public isn't always going to be exactly how things were discussed internally. For instance, from the start of the alliance talk, one of the things on the table has always been a "semi-final". And that could happen...if they adhere exactly as you are laying it out there regarding the divisional requirements.

Pretty straight forward once we get past all the muck stirred up with all the other variables in play to get the alliance to work:
* They said 24 was an option
* We've all snickered, thinking that is too many schools to handle, too big...10 more schools than the most "populated" BCS conference
* But with a CUSA side at 6/6 in an alliance and a MWC side at 6/6 in the alliance, thats...yup, 24 total schools.
* 6/6 pits 2 CUSA divisional winners in a conference championship, and 2 MWC winners in a MWC "conference" championship.
* The winners essentially go back to the what, old Liberty Bowl setup? Wasn't that CUSA #1 vs MWC #1 (or was it WAC? Can't recall). New bowl likely wouldn't be Liberty level, it would likely have enough clout to bump up the list a bit.
* Big negative is that it means the winner is out of the "BCS 3.0" setup for 2014.


And to get to 24, it means:
CUSA adds 4 from the pool of No. Texas, FIU, FAU, Charlotte, App St., UTSA, NMSU, etc
MWC adds 4 from a similar pool with NMSU, UTSA, No. Texas if they can get UTEP to swap and have the alliance SPLIT the Texas state...and the other 2 spots to Utah St. and SJSU.

So really, you COULD get past the requirement of divisional play.

And it could even be done with some cooperation:
CUSA adding FIU, FAU, Charlotte, App St.
MWC adding No. Texas, UTSA, Utah St. and SJSU
CUSA "trading" UTEP to MWC for UTSA

So you're thinking they go w/ what I said is the only way you could pull off 24. Okay so how do they get a TV deal for all 24 as 1 if they stay 2, 12 team conf.? 2 TV deals? Would that make the per school deal weaker? What if 1 gets a bigger tv deal than the other? I'm guessing if 1 school gets a BCS bowl, they can opt out of the Liberty Bowl.



I checked with some people on the specifics of the existing "rules". It seems that under an alliance situation...which as we know is the only way to ensure 2 hoops bids (and other non-football sports)...that it doesn't matter how many schools are in each of the two "divisions" of the alliance. The reason being that there technically would be no "conference championship game" by the existing standards. Because what it would be is an alliance, not a 16-24 school "conference". It would be 2 conferences on paper (by NCAA standards) in which case, the winners of "CUSA" would play the winner of the "MWC" in a game at the end of the season. With no BCS auto-bid at stake for the winner, it's simply another game played. This game can be slotted into the existing bowl format, where it would once again by the only bowl game pitting 2 CONFERENCE winners, or schools ranked #1 in their "conferences".

Now from a business perspective, which lies outside of the NCAA, the "alliance" would negotiate as a single conference. This is no different that if the Big Ten and Pac-12 were to negotiate a TV contract for football only a few years ago at 21 schools rather than expanding to 12 schools each with a championship game. The difference being those conferences already had a BCS slot and the Rose Bowl tie-in.

So to wrap up, CUSA/MWC can bypass any NCAA issues by being an alliance of as many schools as they want, and have the CUSA and MWC winners face off in a game of it's winners...since as an alliance, they are not a single conference. And for TV contract, they can negotiate as a single conference would for football, since they would be following the existing NCAA rules for scheduling, etc.

The other option is to petition the NCAA for an exception or overall rule change if they wanted to try to do the "semi-final" round with 24 schools. But as we know there are limits to the number of games to be played. So CUSA/MWC is betting on the +1 format being added, so that they can use that as precedent for them to have an extra game for ONLY 2 schools in the CUSA/MWC "championship".

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:28 am 
Offline
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
So to consider...

If the BCS doesn't go with a +1 format, CUSA/MWC has no way to do 24 schools with 6 divisions.

Why? Because of the limit in number of games played. Having Hawaii in the conference doesn't change that.

The only way around it would be if ALL CUSA and MWC schools were to leave an empty slot in the game alignment, a loss of millions for each school, in order to keep a "spot" open for a semi-final game AND a final game for the 2 winners.

So it seems safe to scrap that idea as it would require an NCAA petition that would only be relevant to a small number of schools: the 24 in CUSA/MWC.



Seems the most likely scenario remains what we've already seen thus far: 2 schools to CUSA, 2 schools to MWC.

This allows them to opt for an alliance or a full merger with no problems with a merger other than the ones we know (only 1 hoops bid to be split 19 ways instead of having 2 bids split 8 to 10 ways each).

There are a ton of sources, good sources, that have been looking at schools. So the names out there are all mostly legit. But they are not even close to making any final decisions until they figure out what direction to do down.



One thing to remember with the 24 school scenario though...
They CAN pull off a semi-final within the existing NCAA rules...but only as an alliance.

If say...

CUSA adds FIU, Charlotte, LA Tech, North Texas, UTSA
MWC adds Utah St., SJSU, NMSU, UTEP

* Then you have TWO 12 school conferences with TWO divisions each
* Division champs play in a conference championship game
* Conference winners play in a bowl game of both #1's, the conference champions
* The football alliance negotiates a TV contract as a single entity to cover coast to coast.


But 24 is ONLY for an alliance.

16-22 is for an alliance or merger.

Question is, where is there more money? Answer is likely in an alliance, not a merger, with 20 schools.

But both sides will need to add media markets to make the value better. Which is why SJSU, Utah St., UTSA, FIU and No. Texas are considered the top options for both sides. Charlotte could be, but timing is tough with football on the sidelines for another year.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:53 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:19 pm
Posts: 11
How about 24 schools for all sports and 22 w/football?

This kind of makes sense. ECU and others want a pod systems. But not because their pod partners are particularly elite, they want it for baseball, volleyball, basketball, etc. 4 pods, 6 regionalized teams - works great!

Today's Delaware News Journal talked about the future of CAA alignment and argued that an 11 member football conference is actually most advantageous. 5 home games/5 road games. You play everyone in your conference once. If the CUSA/MWC alliance is going to have an inter-conference 'championship' tv game, then there's no rush to go to 12.

CUSA adds FIU, Charlotte, LA Tech, North Texas
MWC adds Utah St., SJSU, NMSU, UTSA

Charlotte (FCS) & UTSA (WAC) get football voted into the league later.


Could that happen?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:07 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
Quinn wrote:
So to consider...

If the BCS doesn't go with a +1 format, CUSA/MWC has no way to do 24 schools with 6 divisions.

Why? Because of the limit in number of games played. Having Hawaii in the conference doesn't change that.

The only way around it would be if ALL CUSA and MWC schools were to leave an empty slot in the game alignment, a loss of millions for each school, in order to keep a "spot" open for a semi-final game AND a final game for the 2 winners.

So it seems safe to scrap that idea as it would require an NCAA petition that would only be relevant to a small number of schools: the 24 in CUSA/MWC.



Seems the most likely scenario remains what we've already seen thus far: 2 schools to CUSA, 2 schools to MWC.

This allows them to opt for an alliance or a full merger with no problems with a merger other than the ones we know (only 1 hoops bid to be split 19 ways instead of having 2 bids split 8 to 10 ways each).

There are a ton of sources, good sources, that have been looking at schools. So the names out there are all mostly legit. But they are not even close to making any final decisions until they figure out what direction to do down.



One thing to remember with the 24 school scenario though...
They CAN pull off a semi-final within the existing NCAA rules...but only as an alliance.

If say...

CUSA adds FIU, Charlotte, LA Tech, North Texas, UTSA
MWC adds Utah St., SJSU, NMSU, UTEP

* Then you have TWO 12 school conferences with TWO divisions each
* Division champs play in a conference championship game
* Conference winners play in a bowl game of both #1's, the conference champions
* The football alliance negotiates a TV contract as a single entity to cover coast to coast.


But 24 is ONLY for an alliance.

16-22 is for an alliance or merger.

Question is, where is there more money? Answer is likely in an alliance, not a merger, with 20 schools.

But both sides will need to add media markets to make the value better. Which is why SJSU, Utah St., UTSA, FIU and No. Texas are considered the top options for both sides. Charlotte could be, but timing is tough with football on the sidelines for another year.

So now you're back on board w/ 20 which is what I thought the biggest scenario the conf could work with. We'll see soon if the IRS article is right. They got the UTSA and Tx St. to WAC right before anyone else. Let's see if they can go 2 for 2

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:05 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7415
Couple of articles out of San Antonio discussing UTSA and MWC/C-USA expansion situation.Dan Mc Carney is reporting that North Texas,USU and FIU invites are "pretty much done deals" while the UTSA situation is still a "work in progress".Links at http://blog.mysanantonio.com/utsa/2012/ ... culation-2
and at http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/coll ... 478948.php


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 2:42 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
Well, lets hope it's UTSA and call it a conf. of 20. USU over La Tech in this article(poor La Tech) Ruston isn't big enough to get a spot.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 8:23 pm 
Offline
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
Quinn wrote:
So to consider...

If the BCS doesn't go with a +1 format, CUSA/MWC has no way to do 24 schools with 6 divisions.

Why? Because of the limit in number of games played. Having Hawaii in the conference doesn't change that.

The only way around it would be if ALL CUSA and MWC schools were to leave an empty slot in the game alignment, a loss of millions for each school, in order to keep a "spot" open for a semi-final game AND a final game for the 2 winners.

So it seems safe to scrap that idea as it would require an NCAA petition that would only be relevant to a small number of schools: the 24 in CUSA/MWC.



Seems the most likely scenario remains what we've already seen thus far: 2 schools to CUSA, 2 schools to MWC.

This allows them to opt for an alliance or a full merger with no problems with a merger other than the ones we know (only 1 hoops bid to be split 19 ways instead of having 2 bids split 8 to 10 ways each).

There are a ton of sources, good sources, that have been looking at schools. So the names out there are all mostly legit. But they are not even close to making any final decisions until they figure out what direction to do down.



One thing to remember with the 24 school scenario though...
They CAN pull off a semi-final within the existing NCAA rules...but only as an alliance.

If say...

CUSA adds FIU, Charlotte, LA Tech, North Texas, UTSA
MWC adds Utah St., SJSU, NMSU, UTEP

* Then you have TWO 12 school conferences with TWO divisions each
* Division champs play in a conference championship game
* Conference winners play in a bowl game of both #1's, the conference champions
* The football alliance negotiates a TV contract as a single entity to cover coast to coast.


But 24 is ONLY for an alliance.

16-22 is for an alliance or merger.

Question is, where is there more money? Answer is likely in an alliance, not a merger, with 20 schools.

But both sides will need to add media markets to make the value better. Which is why SJSU, Utah St., UTSA, FIU and No. Texas are considered the top options for both sides. Charlotte could be, but timing is tough with football on the sidelines for another year.

So now you're back on board w/ 20 which is what I thought the biggest scenario the conf could work with. We'll see soon if the IRS article is right. They got the UTSA and Tx St. to WAC right before anyone else. Let's see if they can go 2 for 2



I was just laying out the facts regarding the specifics about the NCAA rules and what can be done without a waiver, and what would be needed with a full merger vs an alliance. Until they decide on that, there is little that can be considered. But it does appear that if 20 is the number, then they'd benefit more as a FB only alliance with an united TV deal, since they'd get 2 hoops autobids, which at this level of FBS football (vs the Power 5), is a big chunk of change.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 9:02 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
Quinn wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
Quinn wrote:
So to consider...

If the BCS doesn't go with a +1 format, CUSA/MWC has no way to do 24 schools with 6 divisions.

Why? Because of the limit in number of games played. Having Hawaii in the conference doesn't change that.

The only way around it would be if ALL CUSA and MWC schools were to leave an empty slot in the game alignment, a loss of millions for each school, in order to keep a "spot" open for a semi-final game AND a final game for the 2 winners.

So it seems safe to scrap that idea as it would require an NCAA petition that would only be relevant to a small number of schools: the 24 in CUSA/MWC.



Seems the most likely scenario remains what we've already seen thus far: 2 schools to CUSA, 2 schools to MWC.

This allows them to opt for an alliance or a full merger with no problems with a merger other than the ones we know (only 1 hoops bid to be split 19 ways instead of having 2 bids split 8 to 10 ways each).

There are a ton of sources, good sources, that have been looking at schools. So the names out there are all mostly legit. But they are not even close to making any final decisions until they figure out what direction to do down.



One thing to remember with the 24 school scenario though...
They CAN pull off a semi-final within the existing NCAA rules...but only as an alliance.

If say...

CUSA adds FIU, Charlotte, LA Tech, North Texas, UTSA
MWC adds Utah St., SJSU, NMSU, UTEP

* Then you have TWO 12 school conferences with TWO divisions each
* Division champs play in a conference championship game
* Conference winners play in a bowl game of both #1's, the conference champions
* The football alliance negotiates a TV contract as a single entity to cover coast to coast.


But 24 is ONLY for an alliance.

16-22 is for an alliance or merger.

Question is, where is there more money? Answer is likely in an alliance, not a merger, with 20 schools.

But both sides will need to add media markets to make the value better. Which is why SJSU, Utah St., UTSA, FIU and No. Texas are considered the top options for both sides. Charlotte could be, but timing is tough with football on the sidelines for another year.

So now you're back on board w/ 20 which is what I thought the biggest scenario the conf could work with. We'll see soon if the IRS article is right. They got the UTSA and Tx St. to WAC right before anyone else. Let's see if they can go 2 for 2



I was just laying out the facts regarding the specifics about the NCAA rules and what can be done without a waiver, and what would be needed with a full merger vs an alliance. Until they decide on that, there is little that can be considered. But it does appear that if 20 is the number, then they'd benefit more as a FB only alliance with an united TV deal, since they'd get 2 hoops autobids, which at this level of FBS football (vs the Power 5), is a big chunk of change.

So as part of the fb only deal UTEP and Utah St. join the MWC for all sports? UTSA and UNT join CUSA for all sports?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:23 pm 
Offline
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
Quinn wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
Quinn wrote:
So to consider...

If the BCS doesn't go with a +1 format, CUSA/MWC has no way to do 24 schools with 6 divisions.

Why? Because of the limit in number of games played. Having Hawaii in the conference doesn't change that.

The only way around it would be if ALL CUSA and MWC schools were to leave an empty slot in the game alignment, a loss of millions for each school, in order to keep a "spot" open for a semi-final game AND a final game for the 2 winners.

So it seems safe to scrap that idea as it would require an NCAA petition that would only be relevant to a small number of schools: the 24 in CUSA/MWC.



Seems the most likely scenario remains what we've already seen thus far: 2 schools to CUSA, 2 schools to MWC.

This allows them to opt for an alliance or a full merger with no problems with a merger other than the ones we know (only 1 hoops bid to be split 19 ways instead of having 2 bids split 8 to 10 ways each).

There are a ton of sources, good sources, that have been looking at schools. So the names out there are all mostly legit. But they are not even close to making any final decisions until they figure out what direction to do down.



One thing to remember with the 24 school scenario though...
They CAN pull off a semi-final within the existing NCAA rules...but only as an alliance.

If say...

CUSA adds FIU, Charlotte, LA Tech, North Texas, UTSA
MWC adds Utah St., SJSU, NMSU, UTEP

* Then you have TWO 12 school conferences with TWO divisions each
* Division champs play in a conference championship game
* Conference winners play in a bowl game of both #1's, the conference champions
* The football alliance negotiates a TV contract as a single entity to cover coast to coast.


But 24 is ONLY for an alliance.

16-22 is for an alliance or merger.

Question is, where is there more money? Answer is likely in an alliance, not a merger, with 20 schools.

But both sides will need to add media markets to make the value better. Which is why SJSU, Utah St., UTSA, FIU and No. Texas are considered the top options for both sides. Charlotte could be, but timing is tough with football on the sidelines for another year.

So now you're back on board w/ 20 which is what I thought the biggest scenario the conf could work with. We'll see soon if the IRS article is right. They got the UTSA and Tx St. to WAC right before anyone else. Let's see if they can go 2 for 2



I was just laying out the facts regarding the specifics about the NCAA rules and what can be done without a waiver, and what would be needed with a full merger vs an alliance. Until they decide on that, there is little that can be considered. But it does appear that if 20 is the number, then they'd benefit more as a FB only alliance with an united TV deal, since they'd get 2 hoops autobids, which at this level of FBS football (vs the Power 5), is a big chunk of change.

So as part of the fb only deal UTEP and Utah St. join the MWC for all sports? UTSA and UNT join CUSA for all sports?


Is think North Texas and FIU but yes, there sure has been a lot of utsa talk of late. But for all we know, the utsa visit could be to see if they are worthwhile if 22 or 24 are options. For all we know, the 20 is set and utsa is just being looked at to see if 22 or 24 would work, if there are enough worthy schools.

But yeah, seems to work: fiu, utsa and no. Texas to CUSA, Utah st and UTEP to MWC for 20.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?tazapj

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:22 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
Quinn wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
Quinn wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
Quinn wrote:
So to consider...

If the BCS doesn't go with a +1 format, CUSA/MWC has no way to do 24 schools with 6 divisions.

Why? Because of the limit in number of games played. Having Hawaii in the conference doesn't change that.

The only way around it would be if ALL CUSA and MWC schools were to leave an empty slot in the game alignment, a loss of millions for each school, in order to keep a "spot" open for a semi-final game AND a final game for the 2 winners.

So it seems safe to scrap that idea as it would require an NCAA petition that would only be relevant to a small number of schools: the 24 in CUSA/MWC.



Seems the most likely scenario remains what we've already seen thus far: 2 schools to CUSA, 2 schools to MWC.

This allows them to opt for an alliance or a full merger with no problems with a merger other than the ones we know (only 1 hoops bid to be split 19 ways instead of having 2 bids split 8 to 10 ways each).

There are a ton of sources, good sources, that have been looking at schools. So the names out there are all mostly legit. But they are not even close to making any final decisions until they figure out what direction to do down.



One thing to remember with the 24 school scenario though...
They CAN pull off a semi-final within the existing NCAA rules...but only as an alliance.

If say...

CUSA adds FIU, Charlotte, LA Tech, North Texas, UTSA
MWC adds Utah St., SJSU, NMSU, UTEP

* Then you have TWO 12 school conferences with TWO divisions each
* Division champs play in a conference championship game
* Conference winners play in a bowl game of both #1's, the conference champions
* The football alliance negotiates a TV contract as a single entity to cover coast to coast.


But 24 is ONLY for an alliance.

16-22 is for an alliance or merger.

Question is, where is there more money? Answer is likely in an alliance, not a merger, with 20 schools.

But both sides will need to add media markets to make the value better. Which is why SJSU, Utah St., UTSA, FIU and No. Texas are considered the top options for both sides. Charlotte could be, but timing is tough with football on the sidelines for another year.

So now you're back on board w/ 20 which is what I thought the biggest scenario the conf could work with. We'll see soon if the IRS article is right. They got the UTSA and Tx St. to WAC right before anyone else. Let's see if they can go 2 for 2



I was just laying out the facts regarding the specifics about the NCAA rules and what can be done without a waiver, and what would be needed with a full merger vs an alliance. Until they decide on that, there is little that can be considered. But it does appear that if 20 is the number, then they'd benefit more as a FB only alliance with an united TV deal, since they'd get 2 hoops autobids, which at this level of FBS football (vs the Power 5), is a big chunk of change.

So as part of the fb only deal UTEP and Utah St. join the MWC for all sports? UTSA and UNT join CUSA for all sports?


Is think North Texas and FIU but yes, there sure has been a lot of utsa talk of late. But for all we know, the utsa visit could be to see if they are worthwhile if 22 or 24 are options. For all we know, the 20 is set and utsa is just being looked at to see if 22 or 24 would work, if there are enough worthy schools.

But yeah, seems to work: fiu, utsa and no. Texas to CUSA, Utah st and UTEP to MWC for 20.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?tazapj

Yes I forgot to add FIU, CUSA would need 3 w/ UTEP moving to MWC.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:07 pm 
Offline
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
I am hearing that the winds might be just about done pushing in various directions and might soon settle on a set CUSA/MWC plan.

If these non-school specific admins are correct, it appears that the prime direction now appears to be a football alliance only (for a joint TV deal) and separate conferences for other sports, with some basketball tie-ins for OOC scheduling.

As for the membership changes, it appears that FIU and North Texas are near locks to join CUSA in 2013.
On the MWC side, it's Utah St. and San Jose St.

CUSA to 10 members, MWC to 9/10 members, with Hawaii as the FB only member.

Total members for the football alliance, 20, with the 10/10 split.

No word on how things are going with a non-bowl "championship" game between the CUSA winner and MWC winner.

At this point, anything can still happen as one hiccup can change everything, including membership.

As we know, UTSA and others are on the list, but it appears that they are in the 2.0 version, as those 4 schools seem to be near locks with a June announcement.

But at this point, it's certainly, wait-and-see, based on the many changes throughout the process.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:36 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... y/18623903

I want UTEP w/ us! I'll throw in UTSA to give them an in state rival.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:04 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:19 pm
Posts: 11
I really think this is the basic setup they want. I used school names from two of Quinn's posts, but feel free to swap around school names if you'd like. Just showing how I think they want the whole thing to function:

Mountain West Football Conference
Hawaii
Fresno State
San Jose State
Nevada
UNLV
Utah State
Wyoming
Colorado State
Air Force
New Mexico

Conference USA Football Conference
North Texas
UTEP
Tulsa
Rice
Tulane
FIU
Alabama-Birmingham
USM
East Carolina
Marshall

Mountain West winner vs Conference USA winner in Intergalactic Planetary Super Football Bowl game aka MWC-CUSA 'conference' championship


All other sports operate under 4 "conferences" to reduce travel expenses

Pacific "Conference"
Hawaii
Fresno State
San Jose State
Nevada
UNLV
Idaho*

Mountain "Conference"
Utah State
Wyoming
Colorado State
Air Force
New Mexico
UTSA*

Southwest "Conference"
North Texas
UTEP
Tulsa
Rice
Tulane
LA Tech*

Atlantic "Conference"
FIU
Alabama-Birmingham
USM
East Carolina
Marshall
Charlotte*

Pacific plays Mountain for autobid
Southwest plays Atlantic for autobid


The 4 schools with an * are provisional members to be added as football members later in the 2.0 version. Or if teams leave to other conferences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:05 pm 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore

Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 2:22 pm
Posts: 58
Adding SJSU, USU and sliding in UTEP will give an all-sports look of:

SJSU-FSU
UNR-UNLV
UNM-UTEP
WYO-CSU
AFA-USU

This is a pretty tidy travel arrangement for the conference.
Add in Hawaii for FB only and you have 11.

So, it would seem 21-22 might be the magic number for the alliance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:23 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
86mets wrote:
Adding SJSU, USU and sliding in UTEP will give an all-sports look of:

SJSU-FSU
UNR-UNLV
UNM-UTEP
WYO-CSU
AFA-USU

This is a pretty tidy travel arrangement for the conference.
Add in Hawaii for FB only and you have 11.

So, it would seem 21-22 might be the magic number for the alliance.

11 for fb sucks though. Might as well go to 12 and have a title game or just have 10. I still don't see why Hawaii gets a fb only pass. If a conf they were an all sports in forever.(this is the old and new wac mix) Plus the csn board said we need at least 6 all sports that play baseball. If/when AFA or Fresno leave we'd be down to 5 even w/ SJSU. USU, UTEP don't have baseball. UTSA does. Then we could add affiliates after like Dallas Baptist and CSUB. But we still need 6 baseball schools. Of Course Hawaii all sports would solve this. Keeping SDSU's other sports solves this.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 169 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group