(07-25-2013 09:11 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 08:29 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I don't know guys...the number that is being thrown around is "75"...if this is the case we are in, or at least most of the AAC and MWC are in. I think the people that are popping off about this right now are talking more about breaking away from the likes of WKU, WMU, etc. Not UC, UCONN, BYU, AFA, UH etc. When you read the comments of a Mac Brown or Bowlsby they are clearly talking about breaking away from bottom FBS schools that contribute/win nothing and have very small athletic budgets. That doesn't describe a UCONN, or a UC, or USF, etc. I think we are going to be ok when all said and done.

I hope you're right, but what they're doing is a common strategy for this type of political spin game. Always compare your best to their worst to make you look good and them bad. If he were to say, Iowa St is not much different than USF, it wouldn't make his point (mostly because his point is garbage). He exaggerates the difference by comparing the best to the worst. We see the same thing when anyone compares conferences... The Big 10 is better than the ACC, come on Ohio State or Wake Forest? UC faced the same thing when they were hoping to get an invite from the Big 10. We heard a million times about how OSU averages 70K more fans than us and were compared to them. Ignoring the fact that OSU dwarfs nearly every other team in the league as well. Apples to apples comparisons don't make good sound bytes.

Anyway, sorry for the tangent. I hope you're right, but I worry that it's just part of the spin game.

Yep, take away Oklahoma and Texas football from the Big 12, and it's not much better, if at all, than Cusa 1995-2012.

(07-25-2013 06:52 AM)odbpirate Wrote:  Boise and SDSU need to reconsider coming to the American if we all want some form of inclusion.

No they don't. You guys think it'll be P5+American, the Mountain West will be in as well. Like I've said before, you guys aren't miles and miles ahead of us. We are dead equals.

(07-25-2013 10:34 AM)UNLVFan90 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 06:52 AM)odbpirate Wrote:  Boise and SDSU need to reconsider coming to the American if we all want some form of inclusion.

No they don't. You guys think it'll be P5+American, the Mountain West will be in as well. Like I've said before, you guys aren't miles and miles ahead of us. We are dead equals.

The problem with the MWC is the lack of parity that the AAC has. If the P5 had their way, they're not bringing in a conference with so much dead weight. You are at a much greater risk of having 1-2 of your only good programs defect than you are of getting a conference-wide invite to the party. Factor in your weak markets, and it gets even worse. If competition were the only factor, you'd be right, but unfortunately for you, it's not.

(07-24-2013 08:18 PM)AirRaid Wrote:  UNLV football makes Memphis and Tulane look like Alabama. Memphis bb also destroys UNLV bb

UNLV football is bad, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who believes Memphis has a stronger program than UNLV, historically, or currently. Currently it may be slightly better, but hard to tell due to competision level (yes the MWC is stronger than CUSA). Historically, well between a title, and four total final fours that still exist compared to one from 41 seasons ago, a 0.713 winning percentage vs. a .629 winning percentage, 33-19 vs. 19-19 in the NCAA tournament... I don't think it's much of a comparison.

(07-24-2013 08:36 PM)Cougar Hippy Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 08:22 PM)UNLVFan90 Wrote:  I think we could handle Memphis and Tulane last year at home. Our team wasn't as horrible as people make it out to be.

You couldn't handle those FCS teams at home and one of them dropped 40+ on you, so what makes you think you could handle Memphis or Tulane. As much as we rag on them, they both would spank UNLV effortlessly. Temple too.

Can you tell me how UNLV losing to Northern Arizona by 3 is any worse than Memphis losing 20-17 to Tennessee-Martin, then following by losing two consecutive games to the Sunbelt before finishing with a loss to Duke, a team that was so bad they actually proved in court they were no better than a 1AA school (Indiana State)? Granted the game versus Southern Utah... there is no excuse for. But that is probably not a subject a Memphis fan should ever speak on. Nor should a Temple fan [cough] Villanova [cough].

Also, maybe you should worry about beating Middle Tennessee State, and not let them whip your ass four out of five times, before you talk trash to someone else about football.

(07-24-2013 11:19 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Perhaps, but I simply don't think that makes alot of sense for the networks. Trimming nearly 50% of the fanbases from the viewership is bad. Alienating and angering those fanbases is even worse.

In that scenario you may be trimming 50% of the fanbases, but a far fewer percentage of the fans. How much, I don't know, but their argument seems to be that their fans make up 80-90% of the fans, and that they can convert the other 10-20%. Not saying it's the case, but that seems to be their argument.

(07-25-2013 12:57 AM)ecumbh1999 Wrote:  And 30 teams with wining records, only 6 home games for Bama, nation champ with 3-4 loses. Yeah that will work great.

Always thought that as well. One reason I never bought the breakaway. But the new division could work as they may find a way to still play the other teams. Not a fan of it, but IC an see that working more than a breakaway in part because of this very reason. However I should point out that that is how the NFL is, and it works, so maybe we are overthinking it.

(07-25-2013 07:19 AM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  If this happens, I could see a new conference forming with the bigger budget programs from the AAC and MWC. Go 16 teams all-sports and cut out the schools that can't compete on a higher level from a money standpoint.

These two statements may not go together. If you are saying "trim the fat" it may force a deeper cut that 16. 14 or 12.

Including the American Athletic Conference in D4 makes a ton of sense.

1. A starter league that conferences like the B12 and AAC can dip into when raided. Those leagues do not want to have to find membership directly from a lower division level where there is unproven TV value.

2. The AAC has a lot of New Year's Six tradition among its member schools and they make the perfect floater conference in the new system.

3. There has to be a conference with excess teams to back up the P5 in bowl games. The AAC has signed the Military Bowl against the ACC and the MWC has the Las Vegas against the PAC. There is too much contractual language to leave these conferences out.

4. Unlike the MWC, the AAC is expandable nationwide and already has footers for western division in Texas. Adding BYU, Boise, UNLV, SDSU in the West would get the AAC to 16 teams. Throw in Air Force and Army and then you have 18 schools with significant drawing power in FB/BB.

(07-25-2013 10:59 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 07:19 AM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  If this happens, I could see a new conference forming with the bigger budget programs from the AAC and MWC. Go 16 teams all-sports and cut out the schools that can't compete on a higher level from a money standpoint.

These two statements may not go together. If you are saying "trim the fat" it may force a deeper cut that 16. 14 or 12.

You have may have a point.

Top athletic budgets of the AAC/MWC as of 2011:

UConn - $62.9m
Cinci - $43.6m
USF - $43.5m
UCF - $42.8m
New Mexico - $40.4m
Memphis - $40.3m
Air Force - $39.4m
Boise - $37.2m
Hawaii - $36.3m (football only)
SDSU - $36m
Houston - $33.5m
ECU - $32.2m
Temple - $29.7m *
Fresno State - $28.8m
Wyoming - $27.8m *
CSU - $26m
Nevada - $23m *
Utah State - $19.7m *
SJSU - $19.6m *
UNLV - N/A *
Navy - N/A (football only)

Then we have the private schools:

Tulsa - N/A *
Tulane - N/A *
SMU - N/A

Cut off 6-8 of the worst programs and you have a pretty solid case for D4/P5 inclusion.

* - my desired cuts (sorry guys), 16 FB programs, 14 all-sports.

(07-25-2013 10:53 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  Can you tell me how UNLV losing to Northern Arizona by 3 is any worse than Memphis losing 20-17 to Tennessee-Martin, then following by losing two consecutive games to the Sunbelt before finishing with a loss to Duke, a team that was so bad they actually proved in court they were no better than a 1AA school (Indiana State)? Granted the game versus Southern Utah... there is no excuse for. But that is probably not a subject a Memphis fan should ever speak on. Nor should a Temple fan [cough] Villanova [cough].

Also, maybe you should worry about beating Middle Tennessee State, and not let them whip your ass four out of five times, before you talk trash to someone else about football.

I'm not a Memphis fan you stupid lewisville (did that on purpose) redbird.

And let's just say for the sake of argument the AAC absorbed some MWC defectors instead of the two conferences forming a new one.

UConn - $62.9m
Cinci - $43.6m
USF - $43.5m
UCF - $42.8m
New Mexico - $40.4m
Memphis - $40.3m
Boise - $37.2m
SDSU - $36m
Houston - $33.5m
ECU - $32.2m
Temple - $29.7m
Fresno State - $28.8m
Navy - N/A (football only)
Tulsa - N/A
Tulane - N/A
SMU - N/A

(07-25-2013 10:34 AM)UNLVFan90 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 06:52 AM)odbpirate Wrote:  Boise and SDSU need to reconsider coming to the American if we all want some form of inclusion.

No they don't. You guys think it'll be P5+American, the Mountain West will be in as well. Like I've said before, you guys aren't miles and miles ahead of us. We are dead equals.

Not to mention some the MW will have some state senators that will support their state insitutions vs Metro schools of the AAC.

(07-25-2013 10:53 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  UNLV football is bad, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who believes Memphis has a stronger program than UNLV, historically,

(1) Memphis has been playing football for 100 years. Compared to UNLV's 44 years. Certainly a longer history.

(2) During UNLV's short history, Memphis has beaten Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, Florida, Florida State, Kansas State, Miami, Ole Miss, Misissippi State, Missouri, South Carolina, Southern Cal, and Virginia Tech, among others. What significant wins has UNLV achieved during the same 44 year period?

(07-24-2013 08:16 PM)UNLVFan90 Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 08:13 PM)AirRaid Wrote:  

(07-24-2013 08:11 PM)UNLVFan90 Wrote:  Good luck. But if you get in, the MWC deserves to be there with you.

Boise does not MWC

Boise deserves in the most, but all of the MWC does too. If Tulane and Memphis get included in the P5 breakaway, then the whole MWC gets in.

The AAC and MWC should be in. Power 7 conferences and be done with it.

(07-25-2013 11:51 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:53 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  UNLV football is bad, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who believes Memphis has a stronger program than UNLV, historically,

(1) Memphis has been playing football for 100 years. Compared to UNLV's 44 years. Certainly a longer history.

(2) During UNLV's short history, Memphis has beaten Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, Florida, Florida State, Kansas State, Miami, Ole Miss, Misissippi State, Missouri, South Carolina, Southern Cal, and Virginia Tech, among others. What significant wins has UNLV achieved during the same 44 year period?

I was talking about basketball with the second line. the statement was that Memphis was better in football and basketball....

(07-25-2013 11:51 AM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:53 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  UNLV football is bad, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who believes Memphis has a stronger program than UNLV, historically,

(1) Memphis has been playing football for 100 years. Compared to UNLV's 44 years. Certainly a longer history.

(2) During UNLV's short history, Memphis has beaten Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, Florida, Florida State, Kansas State, Miami, Ole Miss, Misissippi State, Missouri, South Carolina, Southern Cal, and Virginia Tech, among others. What significant wins has UNLV achieved during the same 44 year period?

In the same time period, UNLV has managed to beat Arizona State, Arkansas, Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas, Oregon State, TCU, Utah, and Wisconsin. I assume most of Memphis' wins there were during the down years of said programs.

What the hell is D4?

Tulane is ~ mid 30's I believe. But increasing.

(07-25-2013 12:17 PM)Tigermaniac Wrote:  What the hell is D4?

The new NCAA football (and maybe everything else) division the P5 teams want to populate by themselves.

(07-25-2013 11:20 AM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:59 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 07:19 AM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  If this happens, I could see a new conference forming with the bigger budget programs from the AAC and MWC. Go 16 teams all-sports and cut out the schools that can't compete on a higher level from a money standpoint.

These two statements may not go together. If you are saying "trim the fat" it may force a deeper cut that 16. 14 or 12.

You have may have a point.

Top athletic budgets of the AAC/MWC as of 2011:

UConn - $62.9m
Cinci - $43.6m
USF - $43.5m
UCF - $42.8m
New Mexico - $40.4m
Memphis - $40.3m
Air Force - $39.4m
Boise - $37.2m
Hawaii - $36.3m (football only)
SDSU - $36m
Houston - $33.5m
ECU - $32.2m
Temple - $29.7m *
Fresno State - $28.8m
Wyoming - $27.8m *
CSU - $26m
Nevada - $23m *
Utah State - $19.7m *
SJSU - $19.6m *
UNLV - N/A *
Navy - N/A (football only)

Then we have the private schools:

Tulsa - N/A *
Tulane - N/A *
SMU - N/A

Cut off 6-8 of the worst programs and you have a pretty solid case for D4/P5 inclusion.

* - my desired cuts (sorry guys), 16 FB programs, 14 all-sports.

I saw somewhere earlier that UNLV has an athletic budget in the range of $55 million. I'm not sure of the specifics, but it is hands down the highest in the MWC. Leaving them out would be a travesty, given the conditions.

(07-25-2013 01:53 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 11:20 AM)ElectricCoogaloo Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:59 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 07:19 AM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  If this happens, I could see a new conference forming with the bigger budget programs from the AAC and MWC. Go 16 teams all-sports and cut out the schools that can't compete on a higher level from a money standpoint.

These two statements may not go together. If you are saying "trim the fat" it may force a deeper cut that 16. 14 or 12.

You have may have a point.

Top athletic budgets of the AAC/MWC as of 2011:

UConn - $62.9m
Cinci - $43.6m
USF - $43.5m
UCF - $42.8m
New Mexico - $40.4m
Memphis - $40.3m
Air Force - $39.4m
Boise - $37.2m
Hawaii - $36.3m (football only)
SDSU - $36m
Houston - $33.5m
ECU - $32.2m
Temple - $29.7m *
Fresno State - $28.8m
Wyoming - $27.8m *
CSU - $26m
Nevada - $23m *
Utah State - $19.7m *
SJSU - $19.6m *
UNLV - N/A *
Navy - N/A (football only)

Then we have the private schools:

Tulsa - N/A *
Tulane - N/A *
SMU - N/A

Cut off 6-8 of the worst programs and you have a pretty solid case for D4/P5 inclusion.

* - my desired cuts (sorry guys), 16 FB programs, 14 all-sports.

I saw somewhere earlier that UNLV has an athletic budget in the range of $55 million. I'm not sure of the specifics, but it is hands down the highest in the MWC. Leaving them out would be a travesty, given the conditions.

The latest figures I can find on the web are here, and they are from 2009 and total 26 million, with the arrow pointing downward.

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that UNLV's budget increased 5% from 09 to 11, that puts them at 27.3 million. Solidly in the bottom third of that list. Also, their operating budget gives them one of the highest subsidy rates in the country. One of the many reasons I'm ok with nixing them.

Well, if I'm not mistaken SMU has the second highest level of annual donors and contributions after Louisville, who will not be in the conference next year. So we are tops there.

As to the above, as of 2011, SMU was spending $38M, putting us 8th on your list. I'd like to think that would make us a good fit for the new conference.

My $.02