I went through to look at the ratings for the past two years. I wanted to look at them with and without NMSU and Idaho. This isn't exact, as NMSU and Idaho would still be figured into strength of schedule, and this is based on the Massey Composite Ratings and not anything from the NCAA. The more I think about it the more I think the presidents had some numbers indicating the financial impact of NMSU/Idaho, which is why they asked both schools to deliver a powerpoint to show their value to the conference. I came up with the following rankings:

2015 with NMSU and Idaho
1. AAC (69.3 average rating)
2. MAC (83.4 average rating)
3. MWC (88.0 average rating)
4. CUSA (90.8 average rating)
5. SBC (94.5 average rating)

2015 without NMSU and Idaho
1. AAC (69.3 average rating)
2. MAC (83.4 average rating)
3. MWC (88.0 average rating)
4. SBC (89.5 average rating)
5. CUSA (90.8 average rating)

SBC gains one spot and is pushing for the #3 spot. The NCAA numbers are undoubtedly different, so they could show us as high as #3 without the two schools.

2014 with NMSU and Idaho
1. MWC (76.4 average rating)
2. AAC (82.3 average rating)
3. CUSA (83.1 average rating)
4. SBC (97.2 average rating)
5. MAC (97.8 average rating)

2014 without NMSU and Idaho
1. MWC (76.4 average rating)
2. AAC (82.3 average rating)
3. CUSA (83.1 average rating)
4. SBC (90.0 average rating)
5. MAC (97.8 average rating)

No change in position for 2014, but we were close to being last. The NCAA could have had us ranked the #5 conference in 2014, which would mean we probably would have gained one position.

Weren't we last in the official NCAA conference standings for 2014? I wish the NCAA would divulge what system they are using so we could know.

(03-01-2016 09:40 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Weren't we last in the official NCAA conference standings for 2014? I wish the NCAA would divulge what system they are using so we could know.

I thought so too, which is why I put that caveat in there that I think we move up one position.

(03-01-2016 09:40 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Weren't we last in the official NCAA conference standings for 2014? I wish the NCAA would divulge what system they are using so we could know.

Per King Karl at today's press conference the six computer rankings used for the old BCS system are how the performance payout is determined.

I just ran the numbers using the BCS computer rankings and they are identical to Massey's with one exception... I omitted Troy when I originally ran the numbers (how did I do that?), so for 2015 we would have still been ahead of CUSA but by a slimmer margin:

2015 with NMSU and Idaho
1. AAC (69.3 average rating)
2. MAC (83.4 average rating)
3. MWC (88.0 average rating)
4. CUSA (90.8 average rating)
5. SBC (94.9 average rating)

2015 without NMSU and Idaho
1. AAC (69.3 average rating)
2. MAC (83.4 average rating)
3. MWC (88.0 average rating)
4. SBC (90.6 average rating)
5. CUSA (90.8 average rating)

The revenue sharing based on conference rank

2014 CFP
MWC-23.4 million
CUSA-16.3
AAC-15.2
MAC-14.0
Sunbelt-11.9

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...one-050415

lol. can't wait to watch coosa fans react when the SB gets ranked ahead of them next year in football.

Try having your conference drop football and play a year as an independent. With new coaches and this vote hanging over your head and recruit.

The image of this conference is hurt by two FCS schools joining and dominating and the lack of OOC wins.
There is a good chance both Idaho and NMSU help the conference their last two years.

(03-02-2016 12:01 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  I just ran the numbers using the BCS computer rankings and they are identical to Massey's with one exception... I omitted Troy when I originally ran the numbers (how did I do that?), so for 2015 we would have still been ahead of CUSA but by a slimmer margin:

2015 with NMSU and Idaho
1. AAC (69.3 average rating)
2. MAC (83.4 average rating)
3. MWC (88.0 average rating)
4. CUSA (90.8 average rating)
5. SBC (94.9 average rating)

2015 without NMSU and Idaho
1. AAC (69.3 average rating)
2. MAC (83.4 average rating)
3. MWC (88.0 average rating)
4. SBC (90.6 average rating)
5. CUSA (90.8 average rating)

Pretty close .2 Coastal will help I guess.

(03-02-2016 09:21 AM)MJG Wrote:  Try having your conference drop football and play a year as an independent. With new coaches and this vote hanging over your head and recruit.

The image of this conference is hurt by two FCS schools joining and dominating and the lack of OOC wins.
There is a good chance both Idaho and NMSU help the conference their last two years.

The image of the conference (football wise) was hurt more by the inclusion of two of the known worst teams in college football (NMSU and UI). The perception of the conference (in least the south east) was increased by the addition of App and GS.

(03-02-2016 07:19 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  lol. can't wait to watch coosa fans react when the SB gets ranked ahead of them next year in football.

We still have Idaho and NMSU next year right?

(03-02-2016 11:31 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 07:19 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  lol. can't wait to watch coosa fans react when the SB gets ranked ahead of them next year in football.

We still have Idaho and NMSU next year right?

Idaho will help next year. Idaho by itself didn't cost the conference in the rankings last year, and we will have improved -- we lost practically nobody on offense and recruited a ton of defense.

(03-02-2016 11:31 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 07:19 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  lol. can't wait to watch coosa fans react when the SB gets ranked ahead of them next year in football.

We still have Idaho and NMSU next year right?

2016 and 2017... I think NMSU will be improve this coming season but with SBC decision, it could effect NMSU recruiting for 2017. Hopefully, NMSU can feed off 2016 success.

(03-02-2016 09:55 AM)Ole Sleepy Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 09:21 AM)MJG Wrote:  Try having your conference drop football and play a year as an independent. With new coaches and this vote hanging over your head and recruit.

The image of this conference is hurt by two FCS schools joining and dominating and the lack of OOC wins.
There is a good chance both Idaho and NMSU help the conference their last two years.

The image of the conference (football wise) was hurt more by the inclusion of two of the known worst teams in college football (NMSU and UI). The perception of the conference (in least the south east) was increased by the addition of App and GS.

When Coastal got the invite local fans had to look up what teams are in the SBC.
The most known team from the SBC in the Myrtle Beach area is App St .
Because they beat Michigan not because they were good in FCS.
The FCS move ups dominating the conference gets pointed out by message board fans as proving weakness .I don't agree with that but that argument is out there.
All the teams leaving for CUSA was a hit to the perception of the conference.
Hopefully Coastal plays Idaho at home in 2017 and Idaho tries independence or drops football.

I get free tickets to Coastal games so I'll try and make the App St or Ga Southern games .Those two are my second and third favorite SBC teams starting in 2017.
2018 tied for second maybe ULM because they get a lot of grief .

It has been said that A-State's pathetic bowl loss to La Tech cost the SBC last place in 2015.

(03-02-2016 09:57 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  It has been said that A-State's pathetic bowl loss to La Tech cost the SBC last place in 2015.

Flash went out first drive, JD saw limited first half action none in the second, add that to Stone and ugly girl getting arrested and it was one of them things.

(03-02-2016 07:19 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  lol. can't wait to watch coosa fans react when the SB gets ranked ahead of them next year in football.

This is a problem for CUSA. If they have an opening, how do they attract a school from the SBC to become the 14th member of CUSA when its a downgrade financially and competitively in football?

This is why my prediction is NMSU to CUSA when there is an opening instead of an SBC school. There is just no reason to move into that conference anymore from the SBC.

(03-02-2016 11:53 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(03-02-2016 07:19 AM)NCeagle Wrote:  lol. can't wait to watch coosa fans react when the SB gets ranked ahead of them next year in football.

This is a problem for CUSA. If they have an opening, how do they attract a school from the SBC to become the 14th member of CUSA when its a downgrade financially and competitively in football?

This is why my prediction is NMSU to CUSA when there is an opening instead of an SBC school. There is just no reason to move into that conference anymore from the SBC.

. . . and you would be Wrong. . . The number of Texas Teams in CUSA still make it an attractive landing place for Texas State . . . . We'd be "off the island" and we'd have plenty of in-state conference rivals . . .

Not that it matters, as there's really no reason/incentitive for CUSA to take anyone on at this time . . . .

I'd trade pretty much any school looking to get out the last couple of days for Southern Miss. Let's broker a deal.

(03-03-2016 07:48 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  I'd trade pretty much any school looking to get out the last couple of days for Southern Miss. Let's broker a deal.

I think GSU is a better fit for CUSA myself (they obviously don't want to be here anyway, most of them anyway). What about a swap to even out the conferences? We give CUSA GSU and take 3 of there's (USM is at the top of the list and at least one TX team to make TXST happy). CUSA will then get a huge marketz and more access to Ga recruits. We get schools that better match ours and TXST isn't on an island. Both conferences are at 12 football members and we are like

I know its not going to happen, but schools and conferences really need to rethink what is actually better for their school.

Schools I would like to see in SBC would be USM (my favorite) UTSA/UNT (whichever TxST prefers) and MTSU (my brother just moved there and they would bring back TN and fill in a gap in that area with Appy).

Just imagine those 2 conferences.