(12-23-2014 11:04 AM)panama Wrote:  Either way...what is likely to happen long term (5 to 10 years) is , if the waiver does get approved then the P5 is done and so is the AAC. They add nobody else and start building their case and product to be #6. In that case there will be those in the G5 who were left behind (Rice?) who will not like their dance partners and will eventually band together to form a seventh conference.

If the waiver doesnt get approved you have monetary chaos as B12 and AAC start taking schools. Depending on who is left in the G5 you could still end up with some left behind schools wanting to build another conference or maybe the AAC starts falling apart if they lose key members.

Either way there are going to be some top academic schools stuck in G5 conferences who say, you know what I didnt sign up to be in a conference with Eastern Kentucky

Lets start by looking at how conferences might vote on a waiver to allow a CCG with less than 12 teams.

1) Big XII - yes
2) ACC - unknown
3) Pac 12 - unknown
4) B1G - unknown
5) SEC - unknown
6) AAC - yes - they don't want to be raided by the Big XII
7) CUSA - yes - they don't want to be raided by the AAC
8) MAC - probably yes - they don't want more chaos
9) Sun Belt - yes
10) MWC - yes - they might get raided if this gets upended again.

I would think that the SEC wouldn't care - perhaps they'd vote no just to spite the Big XII. The Pac 12 might do the same. The B1G has no dog in the hunt. They might vote no simply to prevent the Big XII from getting an extra game.

But I think the ACC might be willing to vote yes, if only to prevent some attempt by the Big XII to peel off a couple of their football centered schools if there's a dispute in the future. They also have a division issue where they might need to come back for a waiver.

I think that the waiver gets done. The biggest loser if it doesn't get done might not be the Sun Belt. It will most likely be whomever gets left behind over in the AAC.

(12-19-2014 09:29 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  

(12-19-2014 02:56 AM)Tiguar Wrote:  The impact of USA football on USM (and to a lesser extent Troy) has yet to be fully realized by some folks.

I did an analysis last year on the effect USA Football has played on USM and Troy recruiting by comparing the number of Mobile/Pensacola/Biloxi area recruits each program had before and after USA football was formed. Troy wasn't hurt nearly as much as I thought, but USM was clearly hurt.

Mobile/Pensacola/Biloxi area recruits for recruiting years 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 (four years before USA played football):
USM - 16
Troy - 6

Mobile/Pensacola/Biloxi area recruits for recruiting years 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 (four years after USA started playing football):
USM - 5
Troy - 3

Obviously my analysis was focused only on the upper Gulf Coast; a full analysis would be quite interesting. And before someone reads more into this than intended, I'm not saying these recruits are going to USA instead of USM (although we've won some head-to-head battles), but I am saying our presence has certainly had an impact. To what extent? You be the judge.

By the way, I've stated for several years now that with USM's diminished presence in Mobile, they need us more than we need them. They need the visibility in Mobile. If they choose to not be in a league with us then that's their prerogative. And no, I'm not advocating for a CUSA spot.

That's an interesting point.

Yea, USM has been outmaneuvered by USA across the board. First, USA started offering instate tuition to Mississippi Coast residents 30 years ago. 15% of USA's students come from Mississippi now. USM has less than 500 Alabama residents in attendance. USM could have tried to work the Gulf Coast to build ties, but never did anything with it. Now USA is primary in Pascagoula and has a large presence in Biloxi-Gulfport. With the advent of USA football, USM is barely mentioned in Mobile's media, which is primary for much of SE Mississippi. USM's downgrade in conference affiliation has also harmed their reach in the area. Is USM vs FIU any more of a media draw than USA vs Ga Southern?

USM has lost its visibility in Mobile. It is behind USA in Jackson County, Miss (Pascagoula - Mississippi's fifth most populous county). USM does have a lead over USA as far as Biloxi-Gulfport is concerned, but USA has a strong presence there (much stronger than we should - but that's really because USM starved Gulf Park of resources for decades while USA was saying 'psst - we've got more programs, we charge the same, and its easier to get to West Mobile than Hattiesburg'). USM's lack of programs also hurts - no Engineering and USA's health offerings are much better - which makes USA the default option for many Mississippians who need degrees that match up with the economy on the Miss Coast.

In short, USM has been losing to USA in their own backyard. There are now thousands of USA alumni on the Miss Coast. About a third of the Coast gets their media from sources that ignore USM and focus on Jaguar athletics. The second largest feeder school to USA is a school in ..... Mississippi.

USM might need USA, not the other way around. Never thought of it that way. By the way, I doubt the people that run USM see it that way. They've had their heads in the sand for years. We'll be fine in the Sun Belt, with a growing football program, and an enrollment moving well past USM's.

(12-23-2014 12:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 11:04 AM)panama Wrote:  Either way...what is likely to happen long term (5 to 10 years) is , if the waiver does get approved then the P5 is done and so is the AAC. They add nobody else and start building their case and product to be #6. In that case there will be those in the G5 who were left behind (Rice?) who will not like their dance partners and will eventually band together to form a seventh conference.

If the waiver doesnt get approved you have monetary chaos as B12 and AAC start taking schools. Depending on who is left in the G5 you could still end up with some left behind schools wanting to build another conference or maybe the AAC starts falling apart if they lose key members.

Either way there are going to be some top academic schools stuck in G5 conferences who say, you know what I didnt sign up to be in a conference with Eastern Kentucky

Lets start by looking at how conferences might vote on a waiver to allow a CCG with less than 12 teams.

1) Big XII - yes
2) ACC - unknown
3) Pac 12 - unknown
4) B1G - unknown
5) SEC - unknown
6) AAC - yes - they don't want to be raided by the Big XII
7) CUSA - yes - they don't want to be raided by the AAC
8) MAC - probably yes - they don't want more chaos
9) Sun Belt - yes
10) MWC - yes - they might get raided if this gets upended again.

I would think that the SEC wouldn't care - perhaps they'd vote no just to spite the Big XII. The Pac 12 might do the same. The B1G has no dog in the hunt. They might vote no simply to prevent the Big XII from getting an extra game.

But I think the ACC might be willing to vote yes, if only to prevent some attempt by the Big XII to peel off a couple of their football centered schools if there's a dispute in the future. They also have a division issue where they might need to come back for a waiver.

I think that the waiver gets done. The biggest loser if it doesn't get done might not be the Sun Belt. It will most likely be whomever gets left behind over in the AAC.

ACC and Big XII are proposing the currently pending reform jointly.

SEC, Big 10, and Pac-12 are mystery votes. Big 10 only made the field the CFP field this year because of their title game and the lack of one for Big XII.

SEC isn't likely to open the can of worms of deregulation because they are going to stick with their format. They probably don't want the ACC to cherry pick two strong teams for their title game. Pac-12 has enough perception problems as it is, allowing Big XII and ACC to not follow the divisional format and pit any two teams they like probably hurts Pac-12.

None of them have an incentive for Big XII to hold a competing title game without Big XII adding two.

Among the G5, MAC has cut UMass loose to avoid the hassles of 13 and have no real reaon to support it, they probably vote whichever way Big 10 does.

MWC what's in it for them to deregulate? They aren't likely to lose anyone.

AAC, in theory the AAC ought to be opposed but if you are an AAC member your stance is more likely that you want Big XII expanding because you might be called. Internal politics probably makes AAC opposed.

CUSA members eyeing AAC would love to see AAC raided. Like AAC, internal politics probably leads to CUSA being opposed plus why should they split resources 13 or 14 ways and let Sun Belt have a title game with 11?

Sun Belt would favor dereg because Sun Belt can't agree on #12.

(12-23-2014 01:04 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 12:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-23-2014 11:04 AM)panama Wrote:  Either way...what is likely to happen long term (5 to 10 years) is , if the waiver does get approved then the P5 is done and so is the AAC. They add nobody else and start building their case and product to be #6. In that case there will be those in the G5 who were left behind (Rice?) who will not like their dance partners and will eventually band together to form a seventh conference.

If the waiver doesnt get approved you have monetary chaos as B12 and AAC start taking schools. Depending on who is left in the G5 you could still end up with some left behind schools wanting to build another conference or maybe the AAC starts falling apart if they lose key members.

Either way there are going to be some top academic schools stuck in G5 conferences who say, you know what I didnt sign up to be in a conference with Eastern Kentucky

Lets start by looking at how conferences might vote on a waiver to allow a CCG with less than 12 teams.

1) Big XII - yes
2) ACC - unknown
3) Pac 12 - unknown
4) B1G - unknown
5) SEC - unknown
6) AAC - yes - they don't want to be raided by the Big XII
7) CUSA - yes - they don't want to be raided by the AAC
8) MAC - probably yes - they don't want more chaos
9) Sun Belt - yes
10) MWC - yes - they might get raided if this gets upended again.

I would think that the SEC wouldn't care - perhaps they'd vote no just to spite the Big XII. The Pac 12 might do the same. The B1G has no dog in the hunt. They might vote no simply to prevent the Big XII from getting an extra game.

But I think the ACC might be willing to vote yes, if only to prevent some attempt by the Big XII to peel off a couple of their football centered schools if there's a dispute in the future. They also have a division issue where they might need to come back for a waiver.

I think that the waiver gets done. The biggest loser if it doesn't get done might not be the Sun Belt. It will most likely be whomever gets left behind over in the AAC.

ACC and Big XII are proposing the currently pending reform jointly.

SEC, Big 10, and Pac-12 are mystery votes. Big 10 only made the field the CFP field this year because of their title game and the lack of one for Big XII.

SEC isn't likely to open the can of worms of deregulation because they are going to stick with their format. They probably don't want the ACC to cherry pick two strong teams for their title game. Pac-12 has enough perception problems as it is, allowing Big XII and ACC to not follow the divisional format and pit any two teams they like probably hurts Pac-12.

None of them have an incentive for Big XII to hold a competing title game without Big XII adding two.

Among the G5, MAC has cut UMass loose to avoid the hassles of 13 and have no real reaon to support it, they probably vote whichever way Big 10 does.

MWC what's in it for them to deregulate? They aren't likely to lose anyone.

AAC, in theory the AAC ought to be opposed but if you are an AAC member your stance is more likely that you want Big XII expanding because you might be called. Internal politics probably makes AAC opposed.

CUSA members eyeing AAC would love to see AAC raided. Like AAC, internal politics probably leads to CUSA being opposed plus why should they split resources 13 or 14 ways and let Sun Belt have a title game with 11?

Sun Belt would favor dereg because Sun Belt can't agree on #12.

Only 2 CUSA members at the most will get taken by the AAC. Only 2 AAC members at the most will get taken by the Big XII. So if the CUSA/AAC votes to block Big XII expansion, it would seem very myopic of them. The AAC could try to move west too (New Mexico - not likely but not impossible). The MAC is probably safe - but who knows how this will fall out - they could conceivably lose NIU somehow in this.

The only reason why the CUSA, MAC, MWC, or AAC should try to block a playoff for the Big XII is that would perhaps help forcing the CFP to an 8 game format.

You may be correct, but I would think that well over half the schools in the AAC and CUSA would recognize that Big XII expansion means another downgrade for them.