NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Fri Nov 21, 2014 12:52 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5241 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321 ... 350  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 10:14 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 749
Location: Columbus, OH
I just don't see UMass competing at the same level as all of the other schools in this conference. The football program just doesn't have the same level of fan support as the other AAC members. Any future expansion/reloading of the AAC will come from C-USA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 4:15 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1150
fighting muskie wrote:
I just don't see UMass competing at the same level as all of the other schools in this conference. The football program just doesn't have the same level of fan support as the other AAC members. Any future expansion/reloading of the AAC will come from C-USA.


They'd fit right in there with Temple, Memphis, Tulane, and SMU, then.

But I agree...they'll push for Army, BYU, and Air Force...the rest might as well be USM, Rice, UTEP, and Marshall.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2013 12:13 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 749
Location: Columbus, OH
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
fighting muskie wrote:
I just don't see UMass competing at the same level as all of the other schools in this conference. The football program just doesn't have the same level of fan support as the other AAC members. Any future expansion/reloading of the AAC will come from C-USA.


They'd fit right in there with Temple, Memphis, Tulane, and SMU, then.

But I agree...they'll push for Army, BYU, and Air Force...the rest might as well be USM, Rice, UTEP, and Marshall.


Umass would definitely be at the bottom of the barrel I'm terms of attendance. Those other schools at least make the NCAA minimum of 15000 for the most part. I just don't see Army, BYU, or AFA joining without sweetheart deals. I've said it before but I think UTSA is a program to watch. They are doing well at drawing attention in a decent sized market and they help solve the Cincinnati-in-the-west problem. Huntington and Hattiesburg are not tv markets and Rice duplicates a market. UTEP is just so far away.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:23 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:06 am
Posts: 159
Article stating how the exits fees might be divided:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... ike-aresco

_________________
Fan of:
Sun Belt Conference
Summit League
Us National Soccer Team


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:07 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3813
46566 wrote:
Article stating how the exits fees might be divided:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... ike-aresco


Tough call. I think it should be somewhat balanced. I mean, Uconn, Cincy and USF have done nothing but not get picked by another conference. So why the reward? Perhaps that reward should be for the incoming schools that are saving the conference in the first place.

_________________
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 Jun 24, 2013 6:10 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 10:30 am
Posts: 1374
Location: Baltimore, MD
That ought to foster conference solidarity. But then the newbies have nowhere else to go.
Speaking of newbies, who's your early favorite to win the AAC in 2014?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 24, 2013 8:17 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 882
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
fighting muskie wrote:
I just don't see UMass competing at the same level as all of the other schools in this conference. The football program just doesn't have the same level of fan support as the other AAC members. Any future expansion/reloading of the AAC will come from C-USA.


They'd fit right in there with Temple, Memphis, Tulane, and SMU, then.


I think that moving to the AAC will have an impact on many of those schools, primarily UMass. UConn and Cincinnati grant a legitmacy that C-USA 2.0 didn't have.

Tulane's also moving out of the Superdome and into an on-campus stadium that should help their image. Even if they keep drawing 15,000 fans, it looks a lot better in a 30,000 seat stadium than having 53,000 empty seats.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 2:55 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 12:06 am
Posts: 159
Quinn wrote:
46566 wrote:
Article stating how the exits fees might be divided:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... ike-aresco


Tough call. I think it should be somewhat balanced. I mean, Uconn, Cincy and USF have done nothing but not get picked by another conference. So why the reward? Perhaps that reward should be for the incoming schools that are saving the conference in the first place.


I think it was more of a move to appease them and not reward them. I also think that with at least this year the newer schools are going to see a bump in the money that they see anyway due to the BCS contract. Based on a 3 year old distribution of the BCS i say that they may be getting around 1 or 2 mill more then there used to.

Got it from here:
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour ... Split.aspx

While the C-USA might get more money with this years BCS contract due to the WAC not having a football conference.I think the pay increase for this year will offset any hard feeling for the new schools.

_________________
Fan of:
Sun Belt Conference
Summit League
Us National Soccer Team


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:00 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 749
Location: Columbus, OH
Since there are 5 conferences being left out of the big playoff and only the best champion of those 5 conferences getting a slot in one of the access bowls and the Power 5 gobbling up all the other bowl tie ins so as to not have the play the best of the left out conferences I think the AAC, MWC, C-USA, MAC, and SBC should organize a little playoff of their own. The best champ goes to an access bowl so that leaves 4 champions so a 4 team playoff seems natural.

Get a few of the most respectable bowls available to these 5 conferences to take turns hosting the semi-finals and mid-major "title" game. 2nd best champ hosts the 5th best champ at a site closer to the 2nd best school while the 3rd best champ hosts the 4th best champ at a site closer to the 3rd best. Winners of those 2 games meet each other the night before the big conferences have their title game.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:03 am 
Online
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1043
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
fighting muskie wrote:
Since there are 5 conferences being left out of the big playoff and only the best champion of those 5 conferences getting a slot in one of the access bowls and the Power 5 gobbling up all the other bowl tie ins so as to not have the play the best of the left out conferences I think the AAC, MWC, C-USA, MAC, and SBC should organize a little playoff of their own. The best champ goes to an access bowl so that leaves 4 champions so a 4 team playoff seems natural.

Get a few of the most respectable bowls available to these 5 conferences to take turns hosting the semi-finals and mid-major "title" game. 2nd best champ hosts the 5th best champ at a site closer to the 2nd best school while the 3rd best champ hosts the 4th best champ at a site closer to the 3rd best. Winners of those 2 games meet each other the night before the big conferences have their title game.


I totally agree. There should be two FBS national champions, one by "The Power 5" and one by "The Mid-Major 5". And in future years, the national semifinals should expand to become a national tournament of 16 teams. And in the "Final Round", which leads to the BCS national title game, the other bowl games would be decided depending on the performances by the other teams throughout the entire tournament, conference champ or at-large alike.

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:28 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1731
Well, technically there is NOTHING to prevent the selection committee from seeding the National Championship Semi-finals with FOUR schools from "the Little 5".

We all know that isn't going to happen, but the Little 5 / group of 5 / whatever we call (AAC / MAC / SBC / CUSA / MWC)
is not excluded form the National Championship Semi-finals / Championship Game.

This new format is set up to run for 12 years (Jan 2015 - Jan 2026). I would venture to guess that you will see a Little 5 team in the Semi-Finals once or twice during that span.
The scenario will be that such a team will have to be undefeated, and the Champions of at least 2 of the "Power 5" conferences will be multiple loss teams.
This happens quite a bit. The ACC Champ has seldom had a really good W-L record of late, last year 2 of the top teams in the B1G were bowl-ineligible, often a top team with a good W-L record gets bumped off in the CCG.

If a selection committee has to weigh a 13-0 Boise St. team vs. a 9-3 Michigan or a 9-3 Florida State team, who do you think they will pick ?

The "Access Bowl" thing was a blatant money grab by the "power 5" conferneces. Those games are MEANINGLESS in terms of the National Championship, but the Power 5 tied them to the Playoff TV package
so ESPN wound up paying a huge sum of money for those games, 90+% of which will go to the Power 5 (which "own" those games). they deceide to throw "the Little 5" a bone by guaranteeing them one slot,
so this money grab didn't look so obvious. Did it fool anyone ????


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:15 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 749
Location: Columbus, OH
tute79 wrote:
Well, technically there is NOTHING to prevent the selection committee from seeding the National Championship Semi-finals with FOUR schools from "the Little 5".

We all know that isn't going to happen, but the Little 5 / group of 5 / whatever we call (AAC / MAC / SBC / CUSA / MWC)
is not excluded form the National Championship Semi-finals / Championship Game.

This new format is set up to run for 12 years (Jan 2015 - Jan 2026). I would venture to guess that you will see a Little 5 team in the Semi-Finals once or twice during that span.
The scenario will be that such a team will have to be undefeated, and the Champions of at least 2 of the "Power 5" conferences will be multiple loss teams.
This happens quite a bit. The ACC Champ has seldom had a really good W-L record of late, last year 2 of the top teams in the B1G were bowl-ineligible, often a top team with a good W-L record gets bumped off in the CCG.

If a selection committee has to weigh a 13-0 Boise St. team vs. a 9-3 Michigan or a 9-3 Florida State team, who do you think they will pick ?

The "Access Bowl" thing was a blatant money grab by the "power 5" conferneces. Those games are MEANINGLESS in terms of the National Championship, but the Power 5 tied them to the Playoff TV package
so ESPN wound up paying a huge sum of money for those games, 90+% of which will go to the Power 5 (which "own" those games). they deceide to throw "the Little 5" a bone by guaranteeing them one slot,
so this money grab didn't look so obvious. Did it fool anyone ????


I disagree about us seeing a little 5 school in tha 4 team national playoff. I just don't see the powers at be voting someone from outside their club into college football's biggest stage. They are much more apt to vote for a 2nd SEC school and use strength do schedule to justify it. Boise St is probably the only school outside the power 5 that could receive a preseason ranking high enough to vault them through the glass ceiling.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:50 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1731
There will be a Football Playoff selection committee, and the make-up of that has not been determined, but every expectation is that it will contain some representation of all 10 FBS football conferences
(+ maybe independents Army, BYU and Notre Dame).

Everyone in D-1 seems generally happy with the way the D-1 basketball tourney selection committee functions,
and that committee has a lot of members from the mid-major conferences.
You don't hear many well-founded complaints that their selections are influenced by their "home conference".

Having said that, it's quite possible that in a given year a powerful conference could have 2 representatives in the Football Final 4.

I'm willing tho give it a chance that the 4 most deserving teams will be chosen.
The committee doesn't have to rely on polls. Numerous coaches have admitted in recent yearrs that they were too busy to fill out the "Coaches' Poll", so they handed it off to their
Sports Information Director, who often voted based on schools' "reputation" rather than accomplishments during the year. Hopefully those polls will be scrapped, after this final year of the BCS.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 13, 2013 8:52 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:56 pm
Posts: 126
Tute, I have to disagree.
The selection of Alabama to play LSU in the BCS bowl game 2 years ago over Oklahoma St. did not pass the mustard. Politics ruled over common sense. Alabama did not win its conference title, but Oklahoma St. did. This shows that the most deserving team did not make the cut. I do not have faith in a 4 team playoff system. To get a true playoff system in place there must be at least a 16 team playoff to get to the final game. I would prefer a 32 team playoff, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. The reason for the 4 team playoff is to cut out the smaller schools that have a really good team for that season from having a chance to 'bump off' any of the schools from the big 5. Look at how embarrassed Florida was after the loss to Louisville. Can you imagine how embarrassing it would be for Alabama to be eliminated in the first round by little bitty ole' Boise St.? This is why a 4 team playoff was instituted - control of who is allowed in for the title shot.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:11 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1731
I will agree with you that limiting the playoff to 4 teams and then "bundling" the new playoff with a group of meaningless bowl games was a political maneuver to force the vast majority of the $600 million per year ESPN paid for the whole thing into the hands of the 5 power conferences.

Say the semi-finals are the Chick-Fil-A Peach and the Cotton. I will have only passing interest as to who wins the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta. Yet those 8 participants (at least 7 of which will be power conf. teams or Notre Dame will earn huge money, even though the outcome has no bearing on the national championship.

That was the Power 5 conferences utilizing their "control" that you speak of.

I too would strongly prefer a 16-team playoff that would likely involve primarily power conference teams, but would give us 15 meaningful games instead of 3.

2 SEC teams like Alabama and LSU could both wind up in the Final 4. The selection mechanism will be somewhat different, however. A committee will replace the "compute rankings" + a lame poll.
No doubt the computer rankings will be studied by the committee, the way RPI is used in seeding the basketball tournament. But I think it remains to be seen who the committee will choose in close determinations. I would certainly HOPE that if the committee feels that 2 SEC (or other) teams are worthy, they would be seeded in opposite semi-finals to lessen the likelihood of a re-match. The BCS enjoyed having their selection of #1 and #2 on auto-pilot, so there was no accountability. The clown (most recently Hancock) charged with defending the BCS would blame the selection on "those darn computers". We'll see how the new system works. I do think the lesser 5 conferences will be represented on the committee.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5241 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321 ... 350  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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