(09-17-2017 03:36 PM)ODU1986 Wrote:  Realignment can be done and it would likely be financially beneficial to almost everyone. No one needs to be left out:

CUSA North - ODU, JMU, Liberty, Marshall, App State, Charlotte, Coast Carolina

CUSA South - WKU, MTSU, UAB, Ga State, Ga Southern, FIU, FAU

* Put CUSA Basketball Tourney in Charlotte (most drivable location)


Sunbelt East - Troy, S Ala, So Miss, La Tech, ULL, ULM

Sunbelt West - Ark St, UTSA, UTEP, Rice, N Texas, Tex St,

*Put Sunbelt Basketball Tourney in New Orleans (most drivable location)

Now negotiate which existing bowl contracts go to which leagues. Also, renegotiate the existing TV deals with both current CUSA and SBC TV partners (not talking huge money here so shouldn't be too difficult)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is exactly what I am talking about, your Sunbelt East is fine except add Rice and Atk State for an eight team lineup and we are ready to go as a newly formed league. Step aside from current league, form a new one, and you can bet your hat that new setup would be able to garner its own media deals, bowls, etc. There are enough other teams for them to either stay in a watered down cusa, sunbelt, etc or separate themselves into two other new conferences. Nobody is left out and you can be sure USM would be better off. We could go for this until next round.

I'm trying to put something together that can realistically happen. A new FBS league (meaning an eleventh league) cannot realistically happen.

In my set up, we start with two leagues and we end with two leagues. Each league and each division is reasonably balanced, so there can't be but so much opposition from the various schools.

Using the entrance fee funding from JMU and Liberty means it cost no one anything in legal fees. The savings generated in reduced travel cost (from all sports) would be huge. And I'd bet the take at the gate (again all sports and tournaments) would get higher due to increased regional rivalries.

This is literally a no brainer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(09-17-2017 07:06 PM)ODU1986 Wrote:  I think we can all agree that leaving schools out is very problematic. What I was trying to show is that a realignment can realistically happen. As far as Conference name change is concerned, so be it if that's what the schools want to do. That part would be easy.

I included JMU and Liberty to the mix because for the proposed CUSA North, they would be adding more to the pie (in reducing travel cost) than they would be taking (from the CFP payout).

I especially like Liberty as they bring such a huge upside. I do wonder if at this point they would even accept an invite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think there is a way for it to work... just not the way you have envisioned it.

-Some teams need to be left out (Just not enough money in the pot for G5 conferences with more then 10 teams, and cutting the weakest programs automatically increases each conferences strength)

-JMU and Liberty are not the answer (Investing in our programs is a better fund raising plan then adding start ups)

-The C-USA name belongs in the West, and the Sun Belt name belongs in the East (C-USA is based in Texas. The Sun Belt is in New Orleans, which is east of Texas)

(09-17-2017 07:29 PM)Shrack Wrote:  And I like Troy (except when we play), but you're limited by your location. You can't change it. UAB has access to more money and can peak higher simply due to location and metro area

Disagree about falling to pre 2014 numbers. 2006-2014 was full of bad coaching hires no one at UAB wanted with no backing from the admin. Like anyone else, it always depends on the head coach and anyone's attendance is vulnerable to a bad coaching job. UAB football feels pretty different this go around as far as support goes

Example: see Troy's 2011-2015 numbers

I agree with your last statement about attendance. I was just pointing out the lack of facts your fellow UAB'er has.

I disagree with the idea of Troy being limited by location. That seems to be a fallacy that exists today with small-town college athletic programs. Location isn't everything.

Mississippi State hasn't been limited being in Starkville. La Tech has had solid basketball/football programs (excluding most of the WAC years) despite being in Ruston. UConn hasn't had very many limits, especially in basketball... and Storrs is very small.

There are examples all over the college landscape of schools in small towns proving they don't have "limits." I believe this is just something that has been perpetuated in today's market-driven sports, which in many cases is proving to be the wrong way to analyze a program's potential.

(09-17-2017 09:17 PM)CardinalBlackTrojan Wrote:  

(09-17-2017 07:29 PM)Shrack Wrote:  And I like Troy (except when we play), but you're limited by your location. You can't change it. UAB has access to more money and can peak higher simply due to location and metro area

Disagree about falling to pre 2014 numbers. 2006-2014 was full of bad coaching hires no one at UAB wanted with no backing from the admin. Like anyone else, it always depends on the head coach and anyone's attendance is vulnerable to a bad coaching job. UAB football feels pretty different this go around as far as support goes

Example: see Troy's 2011-2015 numbers

I agree with your last statement about attendance. I was just pointing out the lack of facts your fellow UAB'er has.

I disagree with the idea of Troy being limited by location. That seems to be a fallacy that exists today with small-town college athletic programs. Location isn't everything.

Mississippi State hasn't been limited being in Starkville. La Tech has had solid basketball/football programs (excluding most of the WAC years) despite being in Ruston. UConn hasn't had very many limits, especially in basketball... and Storrs is very small.

There are examples all over the college landscape of schools in small towns proving they don't have "limits." I believe this is just something that has been perpetuated in today's market-driven sports, which in many cases is proving to be the wrong way to analyze a program's potential.

Miss State is in the SEC and has statewide influence along with Ole Miss. Troy has neither of these. Not really a good comparison.

Uconn is the only FBS program in Connecticut and has multiple basketball national championships...again, not really a good comparison.

La. Tech is in a similar position as Troy. They get a lot of bang for their buck, but then like I said, basically in the same conference situation as you are.

In the end none of that will matter anyways. It's likely if you're not in a "power" conference at this point you will probably be permanantly relegated to a low status. The time to make proper moves was in the last 15-20 years

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

(09-17-2017 08:45 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(09-17-2017 07:06 PM)ODU1986 Wrote:  I think we can all agree that leaving schools out is very problematic. What I was trying to show is that a realignment can realistically happen. As far as Conference name change is concerned, so be it if that's what the schools want to do. That part would be easy.

I included JMU and Liberty to the mix because for the proposed CUSA North, they would be adding more to the pie (in reducing travel cost) than they would be taking (from the CFP payout).

I especially like Liberty as they bring such a huge upside. I do wonder if at this point they would even accept an invite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think there is a way for it to work... just not the way you have envisioned it.

-Some teams need to be left out (Just not enough money in the pot for G5 conferences with more then 10 teams, and cutting the weakest programs automatically increases each conferences strength)

-JMU and Liberty are not the answer (Investing in our programs is a better fund raising plan then adding start ups)

-The C-USA name belongs in the West, and the Sun Belt name belongs in the East (C-USA is based in Texas. The Sun Belt is in New Orleans, which is east of Texas)

How do you figure? The HQ location only?

(09-18-2017 07:17 AM)goliath74 Wrote:  

(09-17-2017 08:45 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(09-17-2017 07:06 PM)ODU1986 Wrote:  I think we can all agree that leaving schools out is very problematic. What I was trying to show is that a realignment can realistically happen. As far as Conference name change is concerned, so be it if that's what the schools want to do. That part would be easy.

I included JMU and Liberty to the mix because for the proposed CUSA North, they would be adding more to the pie (in reducing travel cost) than they would be taking (from the CFP payout).

I especially like Liberty as they bring such a huge upside. I do wonder if at this point they would even accept an invite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think there is a way for it to work... just not the way you have envisioned it.

-Some teams need to be left out (Just not enough money in the pot for G5 conferences with more then 10 teams, and cutting the weakest programs automatically increases each conferences strength)

-JMU and Liberty are not the answer (Investing in our programs is a better fund raising plan then adding start ups)

-The C-USA name belongs in the West, and the Sun Belt name belongs in the East (C-USA is based in Texas. The Sun Belt is in New Orleans, which is east of Texas)

How do you figure? The HQ location only?

Maybe because the founding league members are in the west. UNCC was non FB when league started and non-member for 7 years. Would make more sense that CUSA name would be in west.

With the non-existent marketing value of both names and the confusion it would create to the college football community... who is where... new names might be more appropriate.

These are not fun times. ESPN, the NCAA and the P5 have blown up the long standing structure of Division I athletics, particularly football. The AAC has found a way to battle for survival. Schools from the other G5 conferences must find a way to join the fray or face the loss of their programs as they now know them. I am positive that for some of our presidents, continuance of C-USA as it currently exists just is not a viable option. In my opinion, an airport meeting is the most likely (if not the only) path for the schools with proactive leadership to take.

Some divorces are friendly. Some are really messy. If there is indeed an airport meeting, the divorce will by definition be really messy. The schools represented at the meeting will be there because the ground work has already been done via telephone. They will be there because they want something different that is in their best interest and they are ready to make it happen. The schools not represented will not be there because they were not invited, and they will be left scrambling. I don't expect to see this resolved with all the institutions together singing kum ba yah as they split up the conference(s) to everyone's satisfaction. I believe that airport meeting will happen. I don't know which schools will be there, but from the perspective of this Monarchs fan, I certainly hope ODU has an invitation.

Aggie out.

(09-17-2017 08:24 PM)ODU1986 Wrote:  I'm trying to put something together that can realistically happen. A new FBS league (meaning an eleventh league) cannot realistically happen.

In my set up, we start with two leagues and we end with two leagues. Each league and each division is reasonably balanced, so there can't be but so much opposition from the various schools.

Using the entrance fee funding from JMU and Liberty means it cost no one anything in legal fees. The savings generated in reduced travel cost (from all sports) would be huge. And I'd bet the take at the gate (again all sports and tournaments) would get higher due to increased regional rivalries.

This is literally a no brainer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why would Liberty join now? They get to keep their money, seem to have no issue scheduling and have their own TV package? JMU would join, but I would think Marshall would go crying back to the MAC rather than be in a division with ODU, App, JMU, Liberty and Coastal. Maybe if we kept WKU and MTSU and didnt take LU or Coastal. ODU, App St, JMU, WKU, MTSU, Marshall. Not a bad division at all, it'd actually be pretty good.

C-USA and Sunbelt rebrand and reconfigure. I realize not everyone will be happy (especially Marshall fans... I understand):

Big American Conference:

East
Western Kentucky
Middle Tennessee
Arkansas State
UAB
Southern Miss
Louisiana Tech

West
La-Lafayette
UTSA
Rice
North Texas
Texas State
UTEP

Great East Conference

North
UMASS
Marshall
Old Dominion
Charlotte
Appalachian State
Liberty or Coastal Carolina (take your pick)

South
Georgia State
Georgia Southern
Troy
South Alabama
FIU
FAU


Out of luck: Coastal Carolina (or Liberty), UL-Monroe, New Mexico State, Idaho

I don't think you'd see too many Marshall fans unhappy IF we can remain associated with certain members.

(09-15-2017 09:50 PM)RowdyAlumni Wrote:  Good Lord if this thread isn't a bunch of mid 40's guys sucking in their gut to look in the mirror and convince themselves they are 20 years old. Southern Miss, I get it. You think you are such a stellar program and deserve all kinds of fame and glory but come on. You're not special. You don't have national prestige or brand recognition. You aren't that much different than the other programs you are bitching about. Grow up and get over it.

Wrong. The AAC should have taken Southern Miss.

(09-18-2017 09:50 AM)RowdyRoost Wrote:  C-USA and Sunbelt rebrand and reconfigure. I realize not everyone will be happy (especially Marshall fans... I understand):

Big American Conference:

East
Western Kentucky
Middle Tennessee
Arkansas State
UAB
Southern Miss
Louisiana Tech

West
La-Lafayette
UTSA
Rice
North Texas
Texas State
UTEP

Great East Conference

North
UMASS
Marshall
Old Dominion
Charlotte
Appalachian State
Liberty or Coastal Carolina (take your pick)

South
Georgia State
Georgia Southern
Troy
South Alabama
FIU
FAU


Out of luck: Coastal Carolina (or Liberty), UL-Monroe, New Mexico State, Idaho

No thanks. I honestly don't care what happens to the Sun Belt. Half the teams in that league don't belong in I-A. Several in C-USA don't belong in I-A.

The Texas teams need to be in either Texas based league or the Mountain West. The best of those east of the Mississippi need to be in a different conference. And when I say best I mean universities that are committed and capable of competing at a high level across the board but mainly in basketball and football.

The only fair way to restructure the maligned 3 conferences is to do it purely from a regional standpoint.

Premise:
• Minimize travel distances to save money
• Maximize regional interests to foster home crowds and visitors
• No one gets forced to a lower division.
• 10 teams is the optimal arrangement.
• Even 40 teams, Idaho drops to FCS, no Independents at this level, JMU moves up.
• Pair each conference with a P5, conference for a fixed championship bowl game, and do whatever it takes to negotiate that, while still holding the NY6 bid option.
• Combine and negotiate TV deal as one league, rather than 4, with a minor Boise type arrangement to incentivize winning.
  

Without Further Ado:

• Southern Conference: Pairs with SEC for bowl tie-in
  • FIU
  • FAU
  • Georgia Southern
  • Georgia State
  • USA
  • Troy
  • UAB
  • Coastal Carolina
  • App State
  • USM
    
• Western Conference: Pairs with Big 12...
  • NMSU
  • LA Tech
  • ULM
  • ULaLa
  • Ark State
  • Texas State
  • Rice
  • UTSA
  • UTEP
  • UNT
    
• Eastern Conference: Pairs with ACC...
  • ODU
  • JMU
  • Charlotte
  • Marshall
  • WKU
  • MTSU
  • Ohio
  • Akron
  • Miami (OH)
  • Kent State
    
• Northern Conference: Pairs with B1G...
  • NIU
  • EMU
  • WMU
  • CMU
  • Buffalo
  • BGSU
  • Toledo
  • Ball State
  • UMass
  • Army
    

This arrangement:
-Provides a tangible reward for postseason success, a shot at the big boys in a region of the country relevant to the majority of the teams in that conference.
-Brings together all the teams suffering from lack of exposure together to pool their net worth and negotiate from a better standing.
-While the conferences won't be perfect in terms of who each university wants to partner with, it provides ample opportunity for them to affiliate elsewhere. This arrangement is for athletics scheduling purposes only. I.e. No one is forcing UAB to consort with Troy outside of the football field and the same goes for LA Tech and ULM, USM and USA, etc.
-Keeps access to the NY6 bid open
-Provides an entertaining and interesting post season model without officially separating teams from the structure.
-Provide a consortium for scheduling purposes. Cross conference scheduling would be treated as OOC, and is easily accessible.

I'm not trolling with this post, I'd genuinely like some feedback on this arrangement

(09-18-2017 10:19 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  The only fair way to restructure the maligned 3 conferences is to do it purely from a regional standpoint.

Premise:
• Minimize travel distances to save money
• Maximize regional interests to foster home crowds and visitors
• No one gets forced to a lower division.
• 10 teams is the optimal arrangement.
• Even 40 teams, Idaho drops to FCS, no Independents at this level, JMU moves up.
• Pair each conference with a P5, conference for a fixed championship bowl game, and do whatever it takes to negotiate that, while still holding the NY6 bid option.
• Combine and negotiate TV deal as one league, rather than 4, with a minor Boise type arrangement to incentivize winning.
  

Without Further Ado:

• Southern Conference: Pairs with SEC for bowl tie-in
  • FIU
  • FAU
  • Georgia Southern
  • Georgia State
  • USA
  • Troy
  • UAB
  • Coastal Carolina
  • App State
  • USM
    
• Western Conference: Pairs with Big 12...
  • NMSU
  • LA Tech
  • ULM
  • ULaLa
  • Ark State
  • Texas State
  • Rice
  • UTSA
  • UTEP
  • UNT
    
• Eastern Conference: Pairs with ACC...
  • ODU
  • JMU
  • Charlotte
  • Marshall
  • WKU
  • MTSU
  • Ohio
  • Akron
  • Miami (OH)
  • Kent State
    
• Northern Conference: Pairs with B1G...
  • NIU
  • EMU
  • WMU
  • CMU
  • Buffalo
  • BGSU
  • Toledo
  • Ball State
  • UMass
  • Army
    

This arrangement:
-Provides a tangible reward for postseason success, a shot at the big boys in a region of the country relevant to the majority of the teams in that conference.
-Brings together all the teams suffering from lack of exposure together to pool their net worth and negotiate from a better standing.
-While the conferences won't be perfect in terms of who each university wants to partner with, it provides ample opportunity for them to affiliate elsewhere. This arrangement is for athletics scheduling purposes only. I.e. No one is forcing UAB to consort with Troy outside of the football field and the same goes for LA Tech and ULM, USM and USA, etc.
-Keeps access to the NY6 bid open
-Provides an entertaining and interesting post season model without officially separating teams from the structure.
-Provide a consortium for scheduling purposes. Cross conference scheduling would be treated as OOC, and is easily accessible.

I'm not trolling with this post, I'd genuinely like some feedback on this arrangement

Here is the problem with solely creating league's on the basis of geography only. It creates winners and losers just on the basis of travel. It also stifles the ability to create multi-bid basketball conferences.

From our perspective at Middle Tennessee, we want to be in a league where 90%+ of the members are going to fully be committed to both basketball and football, but it also needs to be done with geography in mind. The map, alone, should not be the driving factor.

Some of these schools can produce a NY6 football team if everything goes right. But most of them aren't capable of building a basketball program capable of also getting at large bids in basketball. Some of them have good basketball programs but have no shot at ever producing a NY6 type football team. And then some of them are capable of doing both. That's the league (if I'm from a school capable of doing it) I need to be in with other schools capable of doing it. Then it makes the chances of all of those increase.

Kruciff, the main problem I see is getting all three conferences to go in on it. Looks like a tough sell.

(09-18-2017 10:28 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Here is the problem with solely creating league's on the basis of geography only. It creates winners and losers just on the basis of travel. It also stifles the ability to create multi-bid basketball conferences.

From our perspective at Middle Tennessee, we want to be in a league where 90%+ of the members are going to fully be committed to both basketball and football, but it also needs to be done with geography in mind. The map, alone, should not be the driving factor.

Some of these schools can produce a NY6 football team if everything goes right. But most of them aren't capable of building a basketball program capable of also getting at large bids in basketball. Some of them have good basketball programs but have no shot at ever producing a NY6 type football team. And then some of them are capable of doing both. That's the league (if I'm from a school capable of doing it) I need to be in with other schools capable of doing it. Then it makes the chances of all of those increase.

(09-18-2017 10:35 AM)ODU AGGIE Wrote:  Kruciff, the main problem I see is getting all three conferences to go in on it. Looks like a tough sell.

Responding to both of you:

Ya it will be a tough sell, and yes your arguments about basketball are not without merit, but I think this puts everyone involved in the best position to utilize what they have.

Most people assume that the AAC was picked by teams that had some combination of success and location, which is an easy assumption to make, and was probably a factor, but the primary criterion for entry was selecting schools that had the ability and drive to invest in themselves and be a national contender, not just within the conference.

Take a look at Memphis: Laughing stock of FBS, just a basketball school, abysmal attendance in a cavernous dilapidated stadium that didn't even belong to them. Now where are they?

You couldn't pay Tulane to take athletics seriously, now they've found a way to build a stadium on campus and have made legitimate hires across the board and boosted revenue 100+%.


My point is, you need programs that think along the lines of if it is worth it or not, and if it is, go all in for it. Maybe you use that criterion to kick people out who fail to buy in, but for those that do, this arrangement can be a powerful asset. Athletics changes over time. Align with those programs, regionally and financially, that match your goals, and then move forward together.

EDIT: Maybe if you apply that thinking, who is willing to invest in the future together, you make 3 conferences instead of 4 and leave 10 of those members hanging.

I can easily see programs such as NMSU, UTEP, EMU, FIU not being worth it. But you never know.

(09-18-2017 10:28 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(09-18-2017 10:19 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  The only fair way to restructure the maligned 3 conferences is to do it purely from a regional standpoint.

Premise:
• Minimize travel distances to save money
• Maximize regional interests to foster home crowds and visitors
• No one gets forced to a lower division.
• 10 teams is the optimal arrangement.
• Even 40 teams, Idaho drops to FCS, no Independents at this level, JMU moves up.
• Pair each conference with a P5, conference for a fixed championship bowl game, and do whatever it takes to negotiate that, while still holding the NY6 bid option.
• Combine and negotiate TV deal as one league, rather than 4, with a minor Boise type arrangement to incentivize winning.
  

Without Further Ado:

• Southern Conference: Pairs with SEC for bowl tie-in
  • FIU
  • FAU
  • Georgia Southern
  • Georgia State
  • USA
  • Troy
  • UAB
  • Coastal Carolina
  • App State
  • USM
    
• Western Conference: Pairs with Big 12...
  • NMSU
  • LA Tech
  • ULM
  • ULaLa
  • Ark State
  • Texas State
  • Rice
  • UTSA
  • UTEP
  • UNT
    
• Eastern Conference: Pairs with ACC...
  • ODU
  • JMU
  • Charlotte
  • Marshall
  • WKU
  • MTSU
  • Ohio
  • Akron
  • Miami (OH)
  • Kent State
    
• Northern Conference: Pairs with B1G...
  • NIU
  • EMU
  • WMU
  • CMU
  • Buffalo
  • BGSU
  • Toledo
  • Ball State
  • UMass
  • Army
    

This arrangement:
-Provides a tangible reward for postseason success, a shot at the big boys in a region of the country relevant to the majority of the teams in that conference.
-Brings together all the teams suffering from lack of exposure together to pool their net worth and negotiate from a better standing.
-While the conferences won't be perfect in terms of who each university wants to partner with, it provides ample opportunity for them to affiliate elsewhere. This arrangement is for athletics scheduling purposes only. I.e. No one is forcing UAB to consort with Troy outside of the football field and the same goes for LA Tech and ULM, USM and USA, etc.
-Keeps access to the NY6 bid open
-Provides an entertaining and interesting post season model without officially separating teams from the structure.
-Provide a consortium for scheduling purposes. Cross conference scheduling would be treated as OOC, and is easily accessible.

I'm not trolling with this post, I'd genuinely like some feedback on this arrangement

Here is the problem with solely creating league's on the basis of geography only. It creates winners and losers just on the basis of travel. It also stifles the ability to create multi-bid basketball conferences.

From our perspective at Middle Tennessee, we want to be in a league where 90%+ of the members are going to fully be committed to both basketball and football, but it also needs to be done with geography in mind. The map, alone, should not be the driving factor.

Some of these schools can produce a NY6 football team if everything goes right. But most of them aren't capable of building a basketball program capable of also getting at large bids in basketball. Some of them have good basketball programs but have no shot at ever producing a NY6 type football team. And then some of them are capable of doing both. That's the league (if I'm from a school capable of doing it) I need to be in with other schools capable of doing it. Then it makes the chances of all of those increase.

Here's another thought Three: use this "Conference consortium" to fill out your schedule, esp for basketball.

Outside your 18-game basketball schedule, do home and homes with NMSU, UTEP, UMass, USM, Georgia State, on top of the ability to still schedule your tournaments and other unlisted teams.

Doing that will add even further to the (what I'm calling) consortium cohesiveness.

Besides, with Akron, Ohio, WKU, Charlotte, and ODU... MTSU is better off in basketball than most of the other schools

There is no easy way to do realignment. As someone else mentioned, any realignment would only solve one or two problems and would create even more. Align for regional reasons and competitiveness will suffer. Align for football and basketball will suffer. All schools go through ups and downs. Frankly a lot of it is luck. Southern Miss was doing everything right and fell on their face at the wrong time. A bad hire can do that to any of us. An injury (hey MTSU) can derail a whole season. Most of these things are out of our control. All we can do as fans is:
1. Buy season tickets and attend games
2. Donate money to our schools (Athletics and Academics)
3. Hold our admins accountable when they screw up.

If your school takes care of business 1 of two things will happen:
1. You will be in much better shape when conference realignment comes back around
2. You will help strengthen the conference and make it the the top G5 conference out there (assuming everyone else takes care of their business).

As someone pointed out to a Southern Miss fan, there is nothing in this conference holding us back. Go undefeated and you've still got a great shot at the Access bowl (nobody is testing that theory). Win the conference and make noise in the NCAA tournament in basketball.

If you take care of business the worst that happens is you dominate the conference and are in a good position to move on or you are in a very competitive conference that elevates itself above the other G5s.

Clearly any of us would jump to the AAC if offered. Simply because if you don't take it they may offer someone else in the conference and make CUSA less attractive. But honeslty, besides the fact that they are performing really well right now is there anyone in the AAC that would really move the needle for you? From Tech's perspective:
Houston > UTSA
Tulane > Rice ( I have my MBA from Tulane and love them, but they are only better than Rice because they are in the state).
SMU> North Texas (again barely)
Tulsa > UTEP (barely, we have some WAC history with both)
WKU > Cincinnati (at least to our fans there is nothing special about Cincinnati)
Memphis > MTSU (this is almost a toss up no real history with Memphis where we have some with MTSU)
USF-UCF>FIU-FAU (who really cares though)
UConn > ODU (barely)
ECU = Marshall
Temple > Charlotte
USM -UAB > Navy (Navy is great, but USM is more important than Navy because of proximity)

From Tech's perspective at least, any of the spots where AAC>CUSA could be reversed if there were a significant shift in football or basketball prowess. The good news is a lot of schools are committing to making those improvements and many are already showing signs of improvement. The AAC isn't sitting still though. They are a moving target. None of them have such rich and significant histories and name recognition that they cannot be overcome. The danger is if the AAC starts taking some of the bright spots from CUSA.

Past time. Would love to see new conference emerge creating strong teams from the SB and CUSA

New Conference
East - West
Marshall - Ark St
WKU - MTSU
ODU - Troy
APP - La Tech
Liberty - Rice
GA Southern - UTSA

New Sun Belt
Charlotte -TX State
UAB - ULL
Coastal - USA
Ga State - UNT
FAU - UTEP
FIU - NMSU


Left out -
ULM folds or goes UMASS route