NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Wed Aug 27, 2014 2:00 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 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 12  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:41 pm 
Offline
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
I didn't say get rid of both I said for the 7/8 of us to JOIN CUSA. Looks like the presidents woke up and see that as an option now. Quinn you holding to the prediction of the 2 separate conferences. I am sticking w/ they will find a way to be 1 conf, CUSA. Being fb only would mean we still have to add a couple of mouths to feed on both sides that don't carry their own weight. Long term, burning exit fees/credits from the mwc seem like a small price. Travel? what travel? 2 cross over for bball 1 for fb. not bad at all.


My prediction is just what I touched upon in the article: that instead of 3 options, there are now only 2. Gone from the list is to do the original plan, what has been in the works for almost 2 months now...to dissolve both conferences and form something new. what remains are (2) options: A) to fold one conference into the other (losing exit fees, sending the basketball tourney money to all schools, including the exiting ones)...and Option B) to have two separate entities for non-football sports (meaning 2 conference shares for basketball since it's 2 conferences) with a scheduling alliance for football as a 16 school conference with it's own TV contract.

My prediction is that it will be one of the two only options ;)

_________________
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: Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:48 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
Quinn wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
I didn't say get rid of both I said for the 7/8 of us to JOIN CUSA. Looks like the presidents woke up and see that as an option now. Quinn you holding to the prediction of the 2 separate conferences. I am sticking w/ they will find a way to be 1 conf, CUSA. Being fb only would mean we still have to add a couple of mouths to feed on both sides that don't carry their own weight. Long term, burning exit fees/credits from the mwc seem like a small price. Travel? what travel? 2 cross over for bball 1 for fb. not bad at all.


My prediction is just what I touched upon in the article: that instead of 3 options, there are now only 2. Gone from the list is to do the original plan, what has been in the works for almost 2 months now...to dissolve both conferences and form something new. what remains are (2) options: A) to fold one conference into the other (losing exit fees, sending the basketball tourney money to all schools, including the exiting ones)...and Option B) to have two separate entities for non-football sports (meaning 2 conference shares for basketball since it's 2 conferences) with a scheduling alliance for football as a 16 school conference with it's own TV contract.

My prediction is that it will be one of the two only options ;)


It can't and won't be 16 if we stay 2 conferences. MWC would have to add at least 1 all sports member, likely 2 if/when AFA or Fresno leave for the BE. We'd be 8/7. w/o adding. Will the MTN and CUSA's contract allow for them to be rid of fb and do something new while basketball both would be tied to the current deals?

What do you mean 1 of the 2, pick 1, it's okay if you're wrong, and it will look good if you're right. What are you Chris Fowler? You can't make a pick? Corso it up! :twisted:

_________________
Image


Last edited by Fresno St. Alum on Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:51 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:
I didn't say get rid of both I said for the 7/8 of us to JOIN CUSA. Looks like the presidents woke up and see that as an option now. Quinn you holding to the prediction of the 2 separate conferences. I am sticking w/ they will find a way to be 1 conf, CUSA. Being fb only would mean we still have to add a couple of mouths to feed on both sides that don't carry their own weight. Long term, burning exit fees/credits from the mwc seem like a small price. Travel? what travel? 2 cross over for bball 1 for fb. not bad at all.


My prediction is just what I touched upon in the article: that instead of 3 options, there are now only 2. Gone from the list is to do the original plan, what has been in the works for almost 2 months now...to dissolve both conferences and form something new. what remains are (2) options: A) to fold one conference into the other (losing exit fees, sending the basketball tourney money to all schools, including the exiting ones)...and Option B) to have two separate entities for non-football sports (meaning 2 conference shares for basketball since it's 2 conferences) with a scheduling alliance for football as a 16 school conference with it's own TV contract.

My prediction is that it will be one of the two only options ;)


It can't and won't be 16 if we stay 2 conferences. MWC would have to add at least 1 all sports member, likely 2 if/when AFA or Fresno leave for the BE. We'd be 8/7. w/o adding. Will the MTN and CUSA's contract allow for them to be rid of fb and do something new while basketball both would be tied to the current deals?



Yes, true. I mis-posted above. As per the article I wrote, it's a near lock that if it's Option B, that Utah St. and San Jose St. will join the MWC. The question marks will be for CUSA: who to chose? stay at 8 and let MWC add the 2 members for a total of 18 in the FB alliance? Replace Dallas market with North Texas, with maybe an eye on Miami with either FIU or FAU for #10?

_________________
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: Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:04 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:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
I didn't say get rid of both I said for the 7/8 of us to JOIN CUSA. Looks like the presidents woke up and see that as an option now. Quinn you holding to the prediction of the 2 separate conferences. I am sticking w/ they will find a way to be 1 conf, CUSA. Being fb only would mean we still have to add a couple of mouths to feed on both sides that don't carry their own weight. Long term, burning exit fees/credits from the mwc seem like a small price. Travel? what travel? 2 cross over for bball 1 for fb. not bad at all.


My prediction is just what I touched upon in the article: that instead of 3 options, there are now only 2. Gone from the list is to do the original plan, what has been in the works for almost 2 months now...to dissolve both conferences and form something new. what remains are (2) options: A) to fold one conference into the other (losing exit fees, sending the basketball tourney money to all schools, including the exiting ones)...and Option B) to have two separate entities for non-football sports (meaning 2 conference shares for basketball since it's 2 conferences) with a scheduling alliance for football as a 16 school conference with it's own TV contract.

My prediction is that it will be one of the two only options ;)


It can't and won't be 16 if we stay 2 conferences. MWC would have to add at least 1 all sports member, likely 2 if/when AFA or Fresno leave for the BE. We'd be 8/7. w/o adding. Will the MTN and CUSA's contract allow for them to be rid of fb and do something new while basketball both would be tied to the current deals?



Yes, true. I mis-posted above. As per the article I wrote, it's a near lock that if it's Option B, that Utah St. and San Jose St. will join the MWC. The question marks will be for CUSA: who to chose? stay at 8 and let MWC add the 2 members for a total of 18 in the FB alliance? Replace Dallas market with North Texas, with maybe an eye on Miami with either FIU or FAU for #10?


so you think adding those mouths is better than just going as 1 group of 16 and just eat the MWC credits/buyouts?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:38 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm
Posts: 473
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
I didn't say get rid of both I said for the 7/8 of us to JOIN CUSA. Looks like the presidents woke up and see that as an option now. Quinn you holding to the prediction of the 2 separate conferences. I am sticking w/ they will find a way to be 1 conf, CUSA. Being fb only would mean we still have to add a couple of mouths to feed on both sides that don't carry their own weight. Long term, burning exit fees/credits from the mwc seem like a small price. Travel? what travel? 2 cross over for bball 1 for fb. not bad at all.


Or maybe C-USA woke up and realized they don't need or want all those MWC schools. Makes more sense to me for C-USA to go to 14 by adding UTSA, N. Texas, New Mexico, Colorado State, La Tech, and FIU.

Two separate conferences of 10 having a football championship is not a good move. It wouldn't bring in much more money than a single conference championship would and the latter would only be split 12-14 ways instead of 20 ways.

UNM and CSU would rather be in MWC than CUSA, UNM has made it public. why add sh*tty schools when they could get Fresno, Nevada, maybe AFA if they stay. If anyone were to cross over to another conf it would be UTEP back w/ MWC. They planned on it in the Alliance, they have much longer ties to the leftover MWC and lost their 2 main rivals in CUSA. They aren't remotely close geographically to any CUSA school now either.

Did you read the link above you? Sure sounds like they really want the 16 of them to work and not have to add lesser schools that don't bring anything to the conf. let alone 2 separate ones.

Here, look. you think it makes sense for UNM and CSU to be flying across the US just to play ECU and S.Miss? Even though UNM has already said they won't leave the MWC for CUSA. They also have ties to all the MWC schools and just UTEP on the other side. Don't be mad just because SJSU might get left out and then start posting nonsense.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Cbd1.PNG


First off, SJSU and Utah St are likely heading to the MWC or the merged conference so I don't know what I'd be mad at. If not by June within the next five years.

Second, maybe you need to look at that map again. UTEP to East Carolina and Colorado State to East Carolina are pretty darn close. So if UTEP has been doing it for years, why would New Mexico or Colorado State doing it be so crazy? Heck, bust out your compass, I think they're closer than UTEP.

If the alliance doesn't go forward C-USA is going to have to try to appease UTEP or they'd risk losing them to the MWC. Thus N. Texas and/or UTSA are very likely to join. At that point UNM might have to seriously consider it. C-USA would be better than the MWC in many aspects. The big question would be the TV contract and I think C-USA's would be better. I acknowledge it's unlikely, but it would be a smart move by C-USA as it would be a solid replacement for Memphis' basketball program.

And no, it sure sounds like they don't want to lose all those exit fees and the football only alliance seems more likely, at least short term. But as I said, that seems strange since it won't be much more money and it would be split more ways. And if there is no merger the MWC needs to add at least two schools (sorry FSA, we're getting in).

FSA, you and I may love our western teams like Fresno, Nevada, UNLV, SJSU and think we're worth it, but the fact is out east, they don't give a s**t about us. C-USA schools only wanted UNLV and UNM's basketball and they were hoping they'd get an AQ in the BCS. It's starting to look like they won't get any of those. To quote Chris Rock from The Longest Yard: "We didn't get the whole chocolate bar, but we got a Hershey Kiss."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:43 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 10:57 pm
Posts: 1287
Location: Portland! (and about time!)
I saw this from that MWC site comment...

Quote:
You can probably stick a fork in the merger idea. With only a few months left until the Mountain West Conference and Conference USA would move to a full merger, it appears the NCAA might have just driven a stake thru the heart of that monster. According to several reliable sources, the NCAA has told both the MWC and C-USA that the proposed merger would give the league only one AQ berth to postseason events. At the present time, each program has its own awarded slot. So instead of two leagues with two AQs, there would a single 16+ team league and only one AQ.

Here's another sobering zinger and it could be a deal breaker: all the exit fees owed to the conferences by departing members would be null and void if either conference merged with another. Another bucket of cold water that was dumped on the two conferences was the loss of any of the NCAA Tournament revenue money owed by departing members.


Did these conferences really think they were going to keep two bids after a merger? That doesn't pass a couple smell tests.

The exit fees (and perhaps BCS money), maybe.

Tournament credits? $250,000 a round? Um, no. Not that much money per school.

I think the Boise board made the call on this one. Most of this is a ruse. What I think they found out is that no TV network was going to pay them even a reasonable percentage of Big East money.

Yeah, I can see a football alliance for the novelty of it, but even that will only be worth so much.

So even if the Big East is stuck with the same money they're getting now (and the BE does seem like they're trying to play NBC against ESPN for maximum TV money), don't expect Boise State to crawl back. However, there's still more than a little concern about their other sports... which is to say that the Mountain West will now have little choice but to place that sword in the WAC's back.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:57 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
I didn't say get rid of both I said for the 7/8 of us to JOIN CUSA. Looks like the presidents woke up and see that as an option now. Quinn you holding to the prediction of the 2 separate conferences. I am sticking w/ they will find a way to be 1 conf, CUSA. Being fb only would mean we still have to add a couple of mouths to feed on both sides that don't carry their own weight. Long term, burning exit fees/credits from the mwc seem like a small price. Travel? what travel? 2 cross over for bball 1 for fb. not bad at all.


Or maybe C-USA woke up and realized they don't need or want all those MWC schools. Makes more sense to me for C-USA to go to 14 by adding UTSA, N. Texas, New Mexico, Colorado State, La Tech, and FIU.

Two separate conferences of 10 having a football championship is not a good move. It wouldn't bring in much more money than a single conference championship would and the latter would only be split 12-14 ways instead of 20 ways.

UNM and CSU would rather be in MWC than CUSA, UNM has made it public. why add sh*tty schools when they could get Fresno, Nevada, maybe AFA if they stay. If anyone were to cross over to another conf it would be UTEP back w/ MWC. They planned on it in the Alliance, they have much longer ties to the leftover MWC and lost their 2 main rivals in CUSA. They aren't remotely close geographically to any CUSA school now either.

Did you read the link above you? Sure sounds like they really want the 16 of them to work and not have to add lesser schools that don't bring anything to the conf. let alone 2 separate ones.

Here, look. you think it makes sense for UNM and CSU to be flying across the US just to play ECU and S.Miss? Even though UNM has already said they won't leave the MWC for CUSA. They also have ties to all the MWC schools and just UTEP on the other side. Don't be mad just because SJSU might get left out and then start posting nonsense.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Cbd1.PNG


First off, SJSU and Utah St are likely heading to the MWC or the merged conference so I don't know what I'd be mad at. If not by June within the next five years.

Second, maybe you need to look at that map again. UTEP to East Carolina and Colorado State to East Carolina are pretty darn close. So if UTEP has been doing it for years, why would New Mexico or Colorado State doing it be so crazy? Heck, bust out your compass, I think they're closer than UTEP.

If the alliance doesn't go forward C-USA is going to have to try to appease UTEP or they'd risk losing them to the MWC. Thus N. Texas and/or UTSA are very likely to join. At that point UNM might have to seriously consider it. C-USA would be better than the MWC in many aspects. The big question would be the TV contract and I think C-USA's would be better. I acknowledge it's unlikely, but it would be a smart move by C-USA as it would be a solid replacement for Memphis' basketball program.

And no, it sure sounds like they don't want to lose all those exit fees and the football only alliance seems more likely, at least short term. But as I said, that seems strange since it won't be much more money and it would be split more ways. And if there is no merger the MWC needs to add at least two schools (sorry FSA, we're getting in).

FSA, you and I may love our western teams like Fresno, Nevada, UNLV, SJSU and think we're worth it, but the fact is out east, they don't give a s**t about us. C-USA schools only wanted UNLV and UNM's basketball and they were hoping they'd get an AQ in the BCS. It's starting to look like they won't get any of those. To quote Chris Rock from The Longest Yard: "We didn't get the whole chocolate bar, but we got a Hershey Kiss."

UTEP is now no where close to any other CUSA school. You have them adding 2 teams further away, but then say they'll add powerhouses like UNT and UTSA to keep UTEP. If they do that, they won't have room for your fantasy of CSU, UNM, Wyoming who don't want to go anyway.

Last time I checked CSU.UNM, Wyoming are in the west, thus no one cares about us so why would CUSA care about them. What do mean we(w/ SJSU :lol: )? You're right, the east doesn't care about the west so much that SDSU and BSU are in the BE and probably AFA soon.

And yes as of today your chances of getting in have gone way up from them just adding UNT and FIU and calling it a day. However if they stay at 16 and the MWC join CUSA it may just stay at 16.

_________________
Image


Last edited by Fresno St. Alum on Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:01 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
pounder wrote:
I saw this from that MWC site comment...

Quote:
You can probably stick a fork in the merger idea. With only a few months left until the Mountain West Conference and Conference USA would move to a full merger, it appears the NCAA might have just driven a stake thru the heart of that monster. According to several reliable sources, the NCAA has told both the MWC and C-USA that the proposed merger would give the league only one AQ berth to postseason events. At the present time, each program has its own awarded slot. So instead of two leagues with two AQs, there would a single 16+ team league and only one AQ.

Here's another sobering zinger and it could be a deal breaker: all the exit fees owed to the conferences by departing members would be null and void if either conference merged with another. Another bucket of cold water that was dumped on the two conferences was the loss of any of the NCAA Tournament revenue money owed by departing members.


Did these conferences really think they were going to keep two bids after a merger? That doesn't pass a couple smell tests.

The exit fees (and perhaps BCS money), maybe.




Tournament credits? $250,000 a round? Um, no. Not that much money per school.

I think the Boise board made the call on this one. Most of this is a ruse. What I think they found out is that no TV network was going to pay them even a reasonable percentage of Big East money.

Yeah, I can see a football alliance for the novelty of it, but even that will only be worth so much.

So even if the Big East is stuck with the same money they're getting now (and the BE does seem like they're trying to play NBC against ESPN for maximum TV money), don't expect Boise State to crawl back. However, there's still more than a little concern about their other sports... which is to say that the Mountain West will now have little choice but to place that sword in the WAC's back.


You're late to the party. We know that the starting a whole new league won't work and they are idiots if they actually thought they could get 2 AQs w/ 16 when the BE doesn't. They posted a link later in the day saying they will work together as a group of 16 to merge 1 conf into the other so they only lose half the cerdit/buyouts or come up w/ a fb only alliance(which they must not know isn't allowed at the FBS level) So that would mean the MWC would have to drop fb as a sport and CUSA add us as fb only affiliates.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:10 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
I didn't say get rid of both I said for the 7/8 of us to JOIN CUSA. Looks like the presidents woke up and see that as an option now. Quinn you holding to the prediction of the 2 separate conferences. I am sticking w/ they will find a way to be 1 conf, CUSA. Being fb only would mean we still have to add a couple of mouths to feed on both sides that don't carry their own weight. Long term, burning exit fees/credits from the mwc seem like a small price. Travel? what travel? 2 cross over for bball 1 for fb. not bad at all.


Or maybe C-USA woke up and realized they don't need or want all those MWC schools. Makes more sense to me for C-USA to go to 14 by adding UTSA, N. Texas, New Mexico, Colorado State, La Tech, and FIU.

Two separate conferences of 10 having a football championship is not a good move. It wouldn't bring in much more money than a single conference championship would and the latter would only be split 12-14 ways instead of 20 ways.

UNM and CSU would rather be in MWC than CUSA, UNM has made it public. why add sh*tty schools when they could get Fresno, Nevada, maybe AFA if they stay. If anyone were to cross over to another conf it would be UTEP back w/ MWC. They planned on it in the Alliance, they have much longer ties to the leftover MWC and lost their 2 main rivals in CUSA. They aren't remotely close geographically to any CUSA school now either.

Did you read the link above you? Sure sounds like they really want the 16 of them to work and not have to add lesser schools that don't bring anything to the conf. let alone 2 separate ones.

Here, look. you think it makes sense for UNM and CSU to be flying across the US just to play ECU and S.Miss? Even though UNM has already said they won't leave the MWC for CUSA. They also have ties to all the MWC schools and just UTEP on the other side. Don't be mad just because SJSU might get left out and then start posting nonsense.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Cbd1.PNG


First off, SJSU and Utah St are likely heading to the MWC or the merged conference so I don't know what I'd be mad at. If not by June within the next five years.

Second, maybe you need to look at that map again. UTEP to East Carolina and Colorado State to East Carolina are pretty darn close. So if UTEP has been doing it for years, why would New Mexico or Colorado State doing it be so crazy? Heck, bust out your compass, I think they're closer than UTEP.

If the alliance doesn't go forward C-USA is going to have to try to appease UTEP or they'd risk losing them to the MWC. Thus N. Texas and/or UTSA are very likely to join. At that point UNM might have to seriously consider it. C-USA would be better than the MWC in many aspects. The big question would be the TV contract and I think C-USA's would be better. I acknowledge it's unlikely, but it would be a smart move by C-USA as it would be a solid replacement for Memphis' basketball program.

And no, it sure sounds like they don't want to lose all those exit fees and the football only alliance seems more likely, at least short term. But as I said, that seems strange since it won't be much more money and it would be split more ways. And if there is no merger the MWC needs to add at least two schools (sorry FSA, we're getting in).

FSA, you and I may love our western teams like Fresno, Nevada, UNLV, SJSU and think we're worth it, but the fact is out east, they don't give a s**t about us. C-USA schools only wanted UNLV and UNM's basketball and they were hoping they'd get an AQ in the BCS. It's starting to look like they won't get any of those. To quote Chris Rock from The Longest Yard: "We didn't get the whole chocolate bar, but we got a Hershey Kiss."

So even though you're here, you don't pay attention, this was about security they never thought they'd get a BCS AQ out of this. So CUSA goal of expansion was to get UNLV and UNM basketball(yet you never brought up UNLV before now) ignore that all of this is about fb not basketball. You still make no sense w/ they dont care about west school yet want to add them, and the BE did add them. UNM Prez came out and said the only way they would go to CUSA is if it was a full merger/Alliance. It was posted on the MWC board by one of their fans months ago. So in your mind you think they'll leave, what happened to CSU and Wyoming, you gave up on that nonsense but will hold on to this.

By telling me, sorry we're getting in(which you hope) you are admitting that Still Just Sucking Unfortunately doesn't deserve a spot in the MWC/CUSA thing but may get in by default because it would be football only and the MWC needs an 8th all sports which could be USU or SJSU or both when AFA leaves. It could be UTEP if CUSA goes easy on them and wants to stay east. It could be UTEP and UNT for the MWC to get UTEP to join. It could be UTSA and USU. Fresno could be in the BE/BW if AFA says no again, there's a lot of could bes right now.

It was also brought up on the csn board that since you can't have a fbs only conference(unless they change the rule) the MWC could be an oly sport conf/ while being fb onlys in CUSA. MWC could just keep SDSU and BSU for other sports(AFA as well if they go to the BE). Hell they could bring BYU(unless they like being a 14 seed and playing in high school gyms) back too, since BYU wanted that in the first place. That would be 11 oly members w/o diluting the fb product by bringing in more teams that can't carry their weight.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 9:35 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7393
Article out of Montgomery discussing C-USA/MWC merger/Alliance discussions at http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/art ... nav%7Chead


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:09 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:
I didn't say get rid of both I said for the 7/8 of us to JOIN CUSA. Looks like the presidents woke up and see that as an option now. Quinn you holding to the prediction of the 2 separate conferences. I am sticking w/ they will find a way to be 1 conf, CUSA. Being fb only would mean we still have to add a couple of mouths to feed on both sides that don't carry their own weight. Long term, burning exit fees/credits from the mwc seem like a small price. Travel? what travel? 2 cross over for bball 1 for fb. not bad at all.


My prediction is just what I touched upon in the article: that instead of 3 options, there are now only 2. Gone from the list is to do the original plan, what has been in the works for almost 2 months now...to dissolve both conferences and form something new. what remains are (2) options: A) to fold one conference into the other (losing exit fees, sending the basketball tourney money to all schools, including the exiting ones)...and Option B) to have two separate entities for non-football sports (meaning 2 conference shares for basketball since it's 2 conferences) with a scheduling alliance for football as a 16 school conference with it's own TV contract.

My prediction is that it will be one of the two only options ;)


It can't and won't be 16 if we stay 2 conferences. MWC would have to add at least 1 all sports member, likely 2 if/when AFA or Fresno leave for the BE. We'd be 8/7. w/o adding. Will the MTN and CUSA's contract allow for them to be rid of fb and do something new while basketball both would be tied to the current deals?



Yes, true. I mis-posted above. As per the article I wrote, it's a near lock that if it's Option B, that Utah St. and San Jose St. will join the MWC. The question marks will be for CUSA: who to chose? stay at 8 and let MWC add the 2 members for a total of 18 in the FB alliance? Replace Dallas market with North Texas, with maybe an eye on Miami with either FIU or FAU for #10?


so you think adding those mouths is better than just going as 1 group of 16 and just eat the MWC credits/buyouts?


I think it's tricky, hence the change in plans. It's more than just the eating of credits by one conference (and you're right, MWC makes most sense since you've got the CUSA name you can keep, 8 members, etc...all advantages for CUSA to be the front-man). You've got credits from BYU, Utah, SDSU for basketball as well as those from current members. But credits aside, it's also a matter of 16 schools = 1 bid for basketball. Two 8-10 school conferences = 2 bids for 16-20 schools. Since the TV contract for basketball isn't going to be huge, those tourney credits split 8-10 ways will make up a large lump of the conference revenue. Meanwhile, you can form an alliance for football only, get a football-only TV contract, and reap the benefits of that...something that is not looking AS beneficial from a TV contract standpoint now. In other words, when you factor in (2) basketball TV contracts + (2) NCAA tourney bids providing revenue credits, it MIGHT be more money than having ALL-SPORTS for a 16-22 school conference.

Meanwhile, you can have an alliance for football that has it's own TV contract for the 16-22 members.
You can still benefit from a non-football scheduling alliance in the form of things like a hosted CUSA/MWC Challenge each year, alternating between, say, Las Vegas (MWC) and a CUSA city like New Orleans, Houston, Dallas, etc. And of course you have the need for room for BSU and SDSU if they return if the BCS autobid is scrapped and the Big East left in the #6 spot.

I think once the NCAA clarified on the 1 bid issue, on top of the exit fee and credit forfeitures, it changed the game.

My opinion is simply that if they want to do the merge, it means having to keep a vision of long term benefits at the expense of short term financial losses. The safe move is to do a football alliance and keep other sports in 2 separate conferences. But since so much has already been done, I would not be surprised for long term stability to be the key factor and accepting lost money in favor of that via a merge.

As for the MWC, the good thing is that no matter what, the MWC is safe. They have Utah St., SJSU, NMSU, and Idaho in the region that would join if schools left (Air Force). No way 4 schools leave and all 4 needed. And that's if they stay west of Texas. They've got Sunbelt and all the WAC schools to chose from if needed. So no matter the choice on merger type, the MWC is safe.

_________________
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 Mar 27, 2012 12:51 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm
Posts: 473
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
I didn't say get rid of both I said for the 7/8 of us to JOIN CUSA. Looks like the presidents woke up and see that as an option now. Quinn you holding to the prediction of the 2 separate conferences. I am sticking w/ they will find a way to be 1 conf, CUSA. Being fb only would mean we still have to add a couple of mouths to feed on both sides that don't carry their own weight. Long term, burning exit fees/credits from the mwc seem like a small price. Travel? what travel? 2 cross over for bball 1 for fb. not bad at all.


Or maybe C-USA woke up and realized they don't need or want all those MWC schools. Makes more sense to me for C-USA to go to 14 by adding UTSA, N. Texas, New Mexico, Colorado State, La Tech, and FIU.

Two separate conferences of 10 having a football championship is not a good move. It wouldn't bring in much more money than a single conference championship would and the latter would only be split 12-14 ways instead of 20 ways.

UNM and CSU would rather be in MWC than CUSA, UNM has made it public. why add sh*tty schools when they could get Fresno, Nevada, maybe AFA if they stay. If anyone were to cross over to another conf it would be UTEP back w/ MWC. They planned on it in the Alliance, they have much longer ties to the leftover MWC and lost their 2 main rivals in CUSA. They aren't remotely close geographically to any CUSA school now either.

Did you read the link above you? Sure sounds like they really want the 16 of them to work and not have to add lesser schools that don't bring anything to the conf. let alone 2 separate ones.

Here, look. you think it makes sense for UNM and CSU to be flying across the US just to play ECU and S.Miss? Even though UNM has already said they won't leave the MWC for CUSA. They also have ties to all the MWC schools and just UTEP on the other side. Don't be mad just because SJSU might get left out and then start posting nonsense.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Cbd1.PNG


First off, SJSU and Utah St are likely heading to the MWC or the merged conference so I don't know what I'd be mad at. If not by June within the next five years.

Second, maybe you need to look at that map again. UTEP to East Carolina and Colorado State to East Carolina are pretty darn close. So if UTEP has been doing it for years, why would New Mexico or Colorado State doing it be so crazy? Heck, bust out your compass, I think they're closer than UTEP.

If the alliance doesn't go forward C-USA is going to have to try to appease UTEP or they'd risk losing them to the MWC. Thus N. Texas and/or UTSA are very likely to join. At that point UNM might have to seriously consider it. C-USA would be better than the MWC in many aspects. The big question would be the TV contract and I think C-USA's would be better. I acknowledge it's unlikely, but it would be a smart move by C-USA as it would be a solid replacement for Memphis' basketball program.

And no, it sure sounds like they don't want to lose all those exit fees and the football only alliance seems more likely, at least short term. But as I said, that seems strange since it won't be much more money and it would be split more ways. And if there is no merger the MWC needs to add at least two schools (sorry FSA, we're getting in).

FSA, you and I may love our western teams like Fresno, Nevada, UNLV, SJSU and think we're worth it, but the fact is out east, they don't give a s**t about us. C-USA schools only wanted UNLV and UNM's basketball and they were hoping they'd get an AQ in the BCS. It's starting to look like they won't get any of those. To quote Chris Rock from The Longest Yard: "We didn't get the whole chocolate bar, but we got a Hershey Kiss."

So even though you're here, you don't pay attention, this was about security they never thought they'd get a BCS AQ out of this. So CUSA goal of expansion was to get UNLV and UNM basketball(yet you never brought up UNLV before now) ignore that all of this is about fb not basketball. You still make no sense w/ they dont care about west school yet want to add them, and the BE did add them. UNM Prez came out and said the only way they would go to CUSA is if it was a full merger/Alliance. It was posted on the MWC board by one of their fans months ago. So in your mind you think they'll leave, what happened to CSU and Wyoming, you gave up on that nonsense but will hold on to this.

By telling me, sorry we're getting in(which you hope) you are admitting that Still Just Sucking Unfortunately doesn't deserve a spot in the MWC/CUSA thing but may get in by default because it would be football only and the MWC needs an 8th all sports which could be USU or SJSU or both when AFA leaves. It could be UTEP if CUSA goes easy on them and wants to stay east. It could be UTEP and UNT for the MWC to get UTEP to join. It could be UTSA and USU. Fresno could be in the BE/BW if AFA says no again, there's a lot of could bes right now.

It was also brought up on the csn board that since you can't have a fbs only conference(unless they change the rule) the MWC could be an oly sport conf/ while being fb onlys in CUSA. MWC could just keep SDSU and BSU for other sports(AFA as well if they go to the BE). Hell they could bring BYU(unless they like being a 14 seed and playing in high school gyms) back too, since BYU wanted that in the first place. That would be 11 oly members w/o diluting the fb product by bringing in more teams that can't carry their weight.


Security? Are you serious? You really think for a second C-USA was ever in any sort of danger? C-USA has dozens of options (a plenty of them are good options). The MWC doesn't have many options after SJSU and Utah St. Invites to those schools would have gone out months ago but they've been trying to figure the whole merger out. The sorry we're getting in was not admitting we weren't as good (again beat you guys this year, what's that say about your fall from grace) it was a sorry but you're going to have to deal with it because everyone seems to know it's happening but you.

And I don't know why you're saying they weren't hoping for a BCS AQ. They very much were. Remember the full merger between the three conferences and their dream of semifinals and replacing the BE's AQ? When they couldn't get that, then they discussed a full sport merger. Not because either couldn't expand, but they both benefited as a FULL conference and in my opinion, avoided them attempting to raid each other. What did both have to offer at that point? Basketball (it certainly isn't football anymore).

Let's thinking about this since you aren't seeing the logic. C-USA and MWC are at 8 and 7/8 respectively. The MWC has to add at least one as they are staying separate at least for now. If neither conference expands right now how much money do you think they stand to lose in their TV contracts? C-USA is minus Dallas, Houston, Memphis, and Orlando. Those we some of the biggest markets they had. So ask yourself this, is C-USA going to just sit at 8 and take that hit in revenue? Of course not. So they'll add UTSA/N. Texas and FIU. The MWC is going to add at least Utah State or SJSU if not both. They'll have a championship and it'll be televised and the money will get split 20 ways.

Fast forward a few years. Air Force has left the MWC. What does the MWC offer C-USA? UNLV and UNM basketball. It certainly isn't TV sets because my Spartans are in the biggest market and as you say, we don't carry it. So could the merger still go forward? Possibly, but I think they're realizing it isn't beneficial and won't move forward with it (you disagree at that's fine). But if they gave a s**t about Fresno why are they only asking for two crossover games a year? Because they only want to actually see your city once a decade.

Now the closest school to New Mexico is Colorado State (potentially NMSU but I don't think they'd be in at that point). Again, time for you to check the map. Tulsa, UTEP, N. Texas, UTSA would all be closer or a somewhat comparable distance from UNM as it is to CSU. Sure you're quick to point out the furthest away school but that's why the division would have 7 schools thus fewer crossover games (the same reason you say the MWCUSA will work despite the travel).

UTEP is still far from many members and C-USA is probably targeting Charlotte at this point or maybe Georgia State. So, as suggested by many, UTEP might consider leaving for the MWC. How do you appease them? Add schools close to them. The other one of UTSA/N Texas is in for sure. Is it really so unlikely for them to call up UNM and say we want you in and you can hand pick the team that comes with you?

At the end of the day, I think someone is moving, whether it's UTEP West or UNM East I'm not sure. But I think they'll eventually be in the same conference. I think UNM has more in common with Texas schools than they do with western schools like SJSU, FSU, UNR, UNLV, and Idaho. All of which will probably be in the conference in the next few years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:47 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 2803
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
SJSUFan2010 wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
I didn't say get rid of both I said for the 7/8 of us to JOIN CUSA. Looks like the presidents woke up and see that as an option now. Quinn you holding to the prediction of the 2 separate conferences. I am sticking w/ they will find a way to be 1 conf, CUSA. Being fb only would mean we still have to add a couple of mouths to feed on both sides that don't carry their own weight. Long term, burning exit fees/credits from the mwc seem like a small price. Travel? what travel? 2 cross over for bball 1 for fb. not bad at all.


Or maybe C-USA woke up and realized they don't need or want all those MWC schools. Makes more sense to me for C-USA to go to 14 by adding UTSA, N. Texas, New Mexico, Colorado State, La Tech, and FIU.

Two separate conferences of 10 having a football championship is not a good move. It wouldn't bring in much more money than a single conference championship would and the latter would only be split 12-14 ways instead of 20 ways.

UNM and CSU would rather be in MWC than CUSA, UNM has made it public. why add sh*tty schools when they could get Fresno, Nevada, maybe AFA if they stay. If anyone were to cross over to another conf it would be UTEP back w/ MWC. They planned on it in the Alliance, they have much longer ties to the leftover MWC and lost their 2 main rivals in CUSA. They aren't remotely close geographically to any CUSA school now either.

Did you read the link above you? Sure sounds like they really want the 16 of them to work and not have to add lesser schools that don't bring anything to the conf. let alone 2 separate ones.

Here, look. you think it makes sense for UNM and CSU to be flying across the US just to play ECU and S.Miss? Even though UNM has already said they won't leave the MWC for CUSA. They also have ties to all the MWC schools and just UTEP on the other side. Don't be mad just because SJSU might get left out and then start posting nonsense.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Cbd1.PNG


First off, SJSU and Utah St are likely heading to the MWC or the merged conference so I don't know what I'd be mad at. If not by June within the next five years.

Second, maybe you need to look at that map again. UTEP to East Carolina and Colorado State to East Carolina are pretty darn close. So if UTEP has been doing it for years, why would New Mexico or Colorado State doing it be so crazy? Heck, bust out your compass, I think they're closer than UTEP.

If the alliance doesn't go forward C-USA is going to have to try to appease UTEP or they'd risk losing them to the MWC. Thus N. Texas and/or UTSA are very likely to join. At that point UNM might have to seriously consider it. C-USA would be better than the MWC in many aspects. The big question would be the TV contract and I think C-USA's would be better. I acknowledge it's unlikely, but it would be a smart move by C-USA as it would be a solid replacement for Memphis' basketball program.

And no, it sure sounds like they don't want to lose all those exit fees and the football only alliance seems more likely, at least short term. But as I said, that seems strange since it won't be much more money and it would be split more ways. And if there is no merger the MWC needs to add at least two schools (sorry FSA, we're getting in).

FSA, you and I may love our western teams like Fresno, Nevada, UNLV, SJSU and think we're worth it, but the fact is out east, they don't give a s**t about us. C-USA schools only wanted UNLV and UNM's basketball and they were hoping they'd get an AQ in the BCS. It's starting to look like they won't get any of those. To quote Chris Rock from The Longest Yard: "We didn't get the whole chocolate bar, but we got a Hershey Kiss."

So even though you're here, you don't pay attention, this was about security they never thought they'd get a BCS AQ out of this. So CUSA goal of expansion was to get UNLV and UNM basketball(yet you never brought up UNLV before now) ignore that all of this is about fb not basketball. You still make no sense w/ they dont care about west school yet want to add them, and the BE did add them. UNM Prez came out and said the only way they would go to CUSA is if it was a full merger/Alliance. It was posted on the MWC board by one of their fans months ago. So in your mind you think they'll leave, what happened to CSU and Wyoming, you gave up on that nonsense but will hold on to this.

By telling me, sorry we're getting in(which you hope) you are admitting that Still Just Sucking Unfortunately doesn't deserve a spot in the MWC/CUSA thing but may get in by default because it would be football only and the MWC needs an 8th all sports which could be USU or SJSU or both when AFA leaves. It could be UTEP if CUSA goes easy on them and wants to stay east. It could be UTEP and UNT for the MWC to get UTEP to join. It could be UTSA and USU. Fresno could be in the BE/BW if AFA says no again, there's a lot of could bes right now.

It was also brought up on the csn board that since you can't have a fbs only conference(unless they change the rule) the MWC could be an oly sport conf/ while being fb onlys in CUSA. MWC could just keep SDSU and BSU for other sports(AFA as well if they go to the BE). Hell they could bring BYU(unless they like being a 14 seed and playing in high school gyms) back too, since BYU wanted that in the first place. That would be 11 oly members w/o diluting the fb product by bringing in more teams that can't carry their weight.


Security? Are you serious? You really think for a second C-USA was ever in any sort of danger? C-USA has dozens of options (a plenty of them are good options). The MWC doesn't have many options after SJSU and Utah St. Invites to those schools would have gone out months ago but they've been trying to figure the whole merger out. The sorry we're getting in was not admitting we weren't as good (again beat you guys this year, what's that say about your fall from grace) it was a sorry but you're going to have to deal with it because everyone seems to know it's happening but you.

And I don't know why you're saying they weren't hoping for a BCS AQ. They very much were. Remember the full merger between the three conferences and their dream of semifinals and replacing the BE's AQ? When they couldn't get that, then they discussed a full sport merger. Not because either couldn't expand, but they both benefited as a FULL conference and in my opinion, avoided them attempting to raid each other. What did both have to offer at that point? Basketball (it certainly isn't football anymore).

Let's thinking about this since you aren't seeing the logic. C-USA and MWC are at 8 and 7/8 respectively. The MWC has to add at least one as they are staying separate at least for now. If neither conference expands right now how much money do you think they stand to lose in their TV contracts? C-USA is minus Dallas, Houston, Memphis, and Orlando. Those we some of the biggest markets they had. So ask yourself this, is C-USA going to just sit at 8 and take that hit in revenue? Of course not. So they'll add UTSA/N. Texas and FIU. The MWC is going to add at least Utah State or SJSU if not both. They'll have a championship and it'll be televised and the money will get split 20 ways.

Fast forward a few years. Air Force has left the MWC. What does the MWC offer C-USA? UNLV and UNM basketball. It certainly isn't TV sets because my Spartans are in the biggest market and as you say, we don't carry it. So could the merger still go forward? Possibly, but I think they're realizing it isn't beneficial and won't move forward with it (you disagree at that's fine). But if they gave a s**t about Fresno why are they only asking for two crossover games a year? Because they only want to actually see your city once a decade.

Now the closest school to New Mexico is Colorado State (potentially NMSU but I don't think they'd be in at that point). Again, time for you to check the map. Tulsa, UTEP, N. Texas, UTSA would all be closer or a somewhat comparable distance from UNM as it is to CSU. Sure you're quick to point out the furthest away school but that's why the division would have 7 schools thus fewer crossover games (the same reason you say the MWCUSA will work despite the travel).

UTEP is still far from many members and C-USA is probably targeting Charlotte at this point or maybe Georgia State. So, as suggested by many, UTEP might consider leaving for the MWC. How do you appease them? Add schools close to them. The other one of UTSA/N Texas is in for sure. Is it really so unlikely for them to call up UNM and say we want you in and you can hand pick the team that comes with you?

At the end of the day, I think someone is moving, whether it's UTEP West or UNM East I'm not sure. But I think they'll eventually be in the same conference. I think UNM has more in common with Texas schools than they do with western schools like SJSU, FSU, UNR, UNLV, and Idaho. All of which will probably be in the conference in the next few years.

I'm ignoring you now since you think CUSA is secure because they can have crappy SBC schools and not need the better themselves w/ the MWC school who they are already working with. You think UNM has more in common w/ the Texas schools like UNT and UTSA who you have added to CUSA, that they've never played vs. those schools they've been w/ forever? Plus THE PREZ SAID HE WON"T JOIN CUSA UNLESS ITS A FULL MERGER. You're high!

News flash, the MWC has been in Texas thus making UNT, UTSA, Texas St., UTEP, options along w/ USU, SJSU, Idaho. Not sure about NMSU because UNM and UTEP refuse to be in a conf w/ them. That would have to change for them to get a sniff. I know you're still butt hurt that the SBC is going to raid the WAC and they don't even want you. So save it, you are unimportant just like SJSU. 1 win vs us in 20 years, is your claim to glory that you still have to talk about it because SJSU never does anything worth a damn. BYE

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:16 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:52 pm
Posts: 473
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
I'm ignoring you now since you think CUSA is secure because they can have crappy SBC schools and not need the better themselves w/ the MWC school who they are already working with. You think UNM has more in common w/ the Texas schools like UNT and UTSA who you have added to CUSA, that they've never played over schools they've been w/ forever? You're high! I know you're still butt hurt that the SBC is going to raid the WAC and they don't even want you. So save it, you are unimportant just like SJSU. 1 win vs us in 20 years, is your claim to glory that you still have to talk about it because SJSU never does anything worth a damn. BYE


Not sure who is more butt hurt...

Secure does not equal improved. C-USA has tons of options, MWC has about two. They better themselves with UNM, UNLV, ect. But if adding all of them equals losing lots of money they aren't doing it and if you're keeping up that's what's happening.

You tell me does New Mexico have more in common with Texas or with California and Nevada? The only schools left in the MWC from a couple years back will be CSU, Wyoming, and UNLV. So who have they been with forever? Not Fresno. Not Reno. Not Hawaii. Not San Jose, Utah St, and potentially Idaho.

Sorry FSA, you're only looking at this from the western point of view and you continue to think everyone wants to be in a conference with us. They don't. UNM liked the MWC when it had Utah, BYU, SDSU, AFA, UNLV, CSU, and TCU. But that MWC DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE. It's becoming the WAC with a new name and it has shifted West and is going further west.

Idunno FSA, I've been thinking you're the high one. You keep saying Fresno is going to the Big East and every time you write that I laugh out loud. I've never suggested SJSU was anything more than an option for the MWC and have even said I expect Utah State to get in over us and agreed we may have to spend some time as an Indy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:17 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:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
Quinn wrote:
Fresno St. Alum wrote:
I didn't say get rid of both I said for the 7/8 of us to JOIN CUSA. Looks like the presidents woke up and see that as an option now. Quinn you holding to the prediction of the 2 separate conferences. I am sticking w/ they will find a way to be 1 conf, CUSA. Being fb only would mean we still have to add a couple of mouths to feed on both sides that don't carry their own weight. Long term, burning exit fees/credits from the mwc seem like a small price. Travel? what travel? 2 cross over for bball 1 for fb. not bad at all.


My prediction is just what I touched upon in the article: that instead of 3 options, there are now only 2. Gone from the list is to do the original plan, what has been in the works for almost 2 months now...to dissolve both conferences and form something new. what remains are (2) options: A) to fold one conference into the other (losing exit fees, sending the basketball tourney money to all schools, including the exiting ones)...and Option B) to have two separate entities for non-football sports (meaning 2 conference shares for basketball since it's 2 conferences) with a scheduling alliance for football as a 16 school conference with it's own TV contract.

My prediction is that it will be one of the two only options ;)


It can't and won't be 16 if we stay 2 conferences. MWC would have to add at least 1 all sports member, likely 2 if/when AFA or Fresno leave for the BE. We'd be 8/7. w/o adding. Will the MTN and CUSA's contract allow for them to be rid of fb and do something new while basketball both would be tied to the current deals?



Yes, true. I mis-posted above. As per the article I wrote, it's a near lock that if it's Option B, that Utah St. and San Jose St. will join the MWC. The question marks will be for CUSA: who to chose? stay at 8 and let MWC add the 2 members for a total of 18 in the FB alliance? Replace Dallas market with North Texas, with maybe an eye on Miami with either FIU or FAU for #10?


so you think adding those mouths is better than just going as 1 group of 16 and just eat the MWC credits/buyouts?


I think it's tricky, hence the change in plans. It's more than just the eating of credits by one conference (and you're right, MWC makes most sense since you've got the CUSA name you can keep, 8 members, etc...all advantages for CUSA to be the front-man). You've got credits from BYU, Utah, SDSU for basketball as well as those from current members. But credits aside, it's also a matter of 16 schools = 1 bid for basketball. Two 8-10 school conferences = 2 bids for 16-20 schools. Since the TV contract for basketball isn't going to be huge, those tourney credits split 8-10 ways will make up a large lump of the conference revenue. Meanwhile, you can form an alliance for football only, get a football-only TV contract, and reap the benefits of that...something that is not looking AS beneficial from a TV contract standpoint now. In other words, when you factor in (2) basketball TV contracts + (2) NCAA tourney bids providing revenue credits, it MIGHT be more money than having ALL-SPORTS for a 16-22 school conference.

Meanwhile, you can have an alliance for football that has it's own TV contract for the 16-22 members.
You can still benefit from a non-football scheduling alliance in the form of things like a hosted CUSA/MWC Challenge each year, alternating between, say, Las Vegas (MWC) and a CUSA city like New Orleans, Houston, Dallas, etc. And of course you have the need for room for BSU and SDSU if they return if the BCS autobid is scrapped and the Big East left in the #6 spot.

I think once the NCAA clarified on the 1 bid issue, on top of the exit fee and credit forfeitures, it changed the game.

My opinion is simply that if they want to do the merge, it means having to keep a vision of long term benefits at the expense of short term financial losses. The safe move is to do a football alliance and keep other sports in 2 separate conferences. But since so much has already been done, I would not be surprised for long term stability to be the key factor and accepting lost money in favor of that via a merge.

As for the MWC, the good thing is that no matter what, the MWC is safe. They have Utah St., SJSU, NMSU, and Idaho in the region that would join if schools left (Air Force). No way 4 schools leave and all 4 needed. And that's if they stay west of Texas. They've got Sunbelt and all the WAC schools to chose from if needed. So no matter the choice on merger type, the MWC is safe.


I heard yesterday that NCAA doesn't allow football conf. in the FBS, so we'd need to be 8 fb only affiliates in CUSA. Which would make MWC oly sports conf. They could keep SDSU, Boise, AFA, maybe even add BYU who wanted this in the first place. That would give you 11 for bball. 10 if BYU wants to play in high school gyms and be a 14 seed. The 1 AQ vs 2 is overblown. They'd get at least 2 of the 16 in every year. UNM, UNLV, Nevada, UAB, S.Miss, UTEP. You'd get at least 2 of those every year anyway.

_________________
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 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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