(04-13-2012 11:53 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  North Texas is the one I could let go first. They haven't had a lot of success athletically in years and they are a major outlier.

Outlier? - yes.
Football success? - no.
Athletic success? - I guess I don't follow. Seems like our basketball program has been pretty good. Tennis / Soccer / Golf. Is it just Football you are basing this on?

(04-14-2012 12:43 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  A few thoughts.

1) I don't think Western is going to leave for the MAC. The MAC is more limited than the SBC as far as growth. Their schools are largely mature institutions as far as fan bases, budgets, and enrollments. WKU has been a member of the SBC for decades and I don't see them making a lateral move.

2) It would suck if CUSA and MWC took La Tech, MTSU, FIU, UTSA, and UNT. But I just don't see that happening. We will have at least one of the five in our conference, plus Texas State, which puts us at 10. I say we just stop there and let USA, Ga State, and either UTSA and/or Tex State make the transition from FBS newbies to contributing programs.

3) The Alliance better be really careful on how they set up their championship game. Because if they try to set up semi-finals, then watch the big AQ boys do the same thing. And that would cause a lot more damage to CUSA as other conferences seek to add more teams to do the same thing. It would probably be a good thing for ECU or USM, but would be potentially dangerous for Tulane, Rice, and others that are not getting called up ever.

4) The SBC will exist in some form regardless of whatever happens. There are multiple schools looking to upgrade, from Georgia Southern, App State, Jax State, JMU, ODU, Charlotte, etc. Well still be here and we'll still be FBS. And some of our schools will be competitive.

There is a high probability that La Tech, UNT, FIU, UTSA, and MT will ALL be in CUSA within two years, maybe sooner. The AQ conferences are not finished with realignment yet, and until they are, nothing is settled. CUSA will always look to the SBC when it has to replace schools that it loses to an AQ conference. The MWC will always have to pull from the WAC. There is simply no where else for the two of them to turn. There is no doubt that CUSA will be weaker after losing UCF, Houston, Memphis, and SMU, but it WILL be able to get quality replacements in La Tech, UNT, FIU, and MT. Utah State in the WAC, along with ULL, ASU, and WKU of the SBC, will be the next dominoes to fall. How many more defections can the WAC and SBC take and still look anything like viable FBS conferences? We all know the WAC may not survive much longer. Could the same fate be in store for the SBC?

(04-14-2012 07:39 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(04-14-2012 12:43 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  A few thoughts.



.

There is a high probability that La Tech, UNT, FIU, UTSA, and MT will ALL be in CUSA within two years, maybe sooner. The AQ conferences are not finished with realignment yet, and until they are, nothing is settled. CUSA will always look to the SBC when it has to replace schools that it loses to an AQ conference. The MWC will always have to pull from the WAC. There is simply no where else for the two of them to turn. There is no doubt that CUSA will be weaker after losing UCF, Houston, Memphis, and SMU, but it WILL be able to get quality replacements in La Tech, UNT, FIU, and MT. Utah State in the WAC, along with ULL, ASU, and WKU of the SBC, will be the next dominoes to fall. How many more defections can the WAC and SBC take and still look anything like viable FBS conferences? We all know the WAC may not survive much longer. Could the same fate be in store for the SBC?

If the Alliance is going to 20 right now as speculated they need 4 schools as of today. There is a pretty good chance BE will take 1 more from alliance either this year or next. If and when that happens they need a 5th school. Pretty good chance things will settle for 3 to 5 years after that if B12 decides to stay with 10.

(04-14-2012 08:00 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(04-14-2012 07:39 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(04-14-2012 12:43 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  A few thoughts.



.

There is a high probability that La Tech, UNT, FIU, UTSA, and MT will ALL be in CUSA within two years, maybe sooner. The AQ conferences are not finished with realignment yet, and until they are, nothing is settled. CUSA will always look to the SBC when it has to replace schools that it loses to an AQ conference. The MWC will always have to pull from the WAC. There is simply no where else for the two of them to turn. There is no doubt that CUSA will be weaker after losing UCF, Houston, Memphis, and SMU, but it WILL be able to get quality replacements in La Tech, UNT, FIU, and MT. Utah State in the WAC, along with ULL, ASU, and WKU of the SBC, will be the next dominoes to fall. How many more defections can the WAC and SBC take and still look anything like viable FBS conferences? We all know the WAC may not survive much longer. Could the same fate be in store for the SBC?

If the Alliance is going to 20 right now as speculated they need 4 schools as of today. There is a pretty good chance BE will take 1 more from alliance either this year or next. If and when that happens they need a 5th school. Pretty good chance things will settle for 3 to 5 years after that if B12 decides to stay with 10.

So if CUSA goes to 12, and takes 5 from the WAC/SBC/FCS, then that would mean that UTEP is going to the MWC. I'm not sure that decision is the least risky for UTEP. Here's why. CUSA, at least for now, is in no danger of falling apart. It can, at least for now, continue to raid any number of FCS and SBC (or even MAC) schools to stay viable. Unfortunately, once the WAC falls apart, there really aren't many good choices for the MWC if they need to find additional teams.

For right now, I'm not concerned with a WAC scenario for the Sun Belt. Just too many schools even within our footprint to consider if we needed them. Geography matters.

If the CUSA loses USM in the next round of expansion, it further reduces the distance between CUSA and the SBC. At some point, do the additional costs of joining a far flung conference outweigh the potential benefits of joining a conference with Rice, Tulane, UAB, and some teams that are not even upper range SBC schools? Are you going to even get to play the two remaining good CUSA teams every year (ECU and Tulsa).

And if ECU leaves in the next round of expansion, the CUSA would look pretty stupid if they took a team behind the SBC FCS moveups, Charlotte.

And if two of the three schools get poached in the next round of expansion, why would a team want to leave the Belt for CUSA? At that point, CUSA simply becomes a more expensive move for a very marginally better conference. At some point, why bother leaving a geographically compact conference that makes sense? There isn't going to be a whole lot of money for a CUSA without USM or ECU.

We shall see if CUSA takes MTSU, LTU, UTSA, La Tech, FIU, and UNT. Has anyone calculated the Sagarins of a conference like that? Versus the SBC less FIU, MTSU, UNT plus Texas State, Georgia State, and Appy? I'm sure CUSA would be higher, but I'm not sure either conference is looking to be a BCS buster.

Perhaps the CUSA is trying to act defensively by raiding more of the SBC than they otherwise would before they are put in a situation where their product isn't demonstrably better than the product with the SBC. We shall see.

I like how Tech fans love to ignore that Utah St and San Jose St are likely to go to the alliance. Conference USA isn't the only player in the (alliance) they need west teams as much as they need east teams. I see it as San Jose, Utah St, UNT, FIU. Then the Sun Belt adds TxSt, UtSA, La Tech, and UNCC

SBC East

1.Troy
2.South
3.Middle T
4.Western Kentucky
5.Georgia State
6.FAU
7.UNCC
8.UALR (non football)

SBC West

1.La Tech
2.ULL
3.ULM
4.TxSt
5.UTSA
6.ASU
7.New Mexico state
8.Denver comes back (non football)

14 football 16 basketball and I say throw Dallas Baptist baseball a lifeboat since they play in the WAC and would boost the league RPI. Play eight conference games (six division and two crossover)

I personally would be quite happy if it turned out like this because the alliance would have it's 20 teams and we would have 16 and be right with them in football and basketball.

And for basketball everyone plays every conference team once but every team plays their rival twice. However, I say pair the following for basketball rivals

GaSt-UNCC
Denver-NMS
UALR-ASU
Txst-UTSA
Not sure about La Tech

(04-13-2012 05:03 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  the thing about the Alliance I think is dumb is the sheer number of programs involved. No non-AQ Conference is going to have an abundance of bowl tie-ins, so creating a league that has 20+ teams will only dilute the chances of your boys playing in the post season.

If you combine two conferences into one and in the process eliminate a 3rd conference, all of those bowl tie-ins will be renegotiated and most will stick with the conferences they've already been with. So if C-USA had 6 bowls and the MWC had 5, they'll probably have 11 bowls and maybe an additional one or two from the WAC.

I don't see how it would cut down on bowl appearances.

(04-14-2012 02:43 PM)JustAnotherName Wrote:  

(04-13-2012 05:03 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  the thing about the Alliance I think is dumb is the sheer number of programs involved. No non-AQ Conference is going to have an abundance of bowl tie-ins, so creating a league that has 20+ teams will only dilute the chances of your boys playing in the post season.

If you combine two conferences into one and in the process eliminate a 3rd conference, all of those bowl tie-ins will be renegotiated and most will stick with the conferences they've already been with. So if C-USA had 6 bowls and the MWC had 5, they'll probably have 11 bowls and maybe an additional one or two from the WAC.

I don't see how it would cut down on bowl appearances.

Except for the fact the MWC and Conference USA play each other in some of those bowls and the independence bowl is probably gone with Memphis just like the one in Boise is probably gone with Boise.

It's realistically going to be about eight bowls for 20 teams if that.

Not to mention some of those bowls chose one of the two leagues because of the teams who left.