(01-29-2014 05:41 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 04:25 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 02:50 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  1. getting 64 teams together to negotiate for "half the content" of college football just gives the networks a chance to low ball the 64 teams for half of the content of college football......there is no shortage of content there is a shortage of hours in the day that people can sit in front of the TV and watch football and the number of channels they can watch at one time
...........

What you just described sounds a lot like the MAC. Regional teams, a bunch of rivalries, perennial bottom dwellers, etc.

The problem with the rest of the ish you wrote is that the MAC as a conference has been very successful. They have TV, they have bowl bids, they have stability, they have had Top25 teams, etc

the MAC makes 1 million per team on their new TV deal

the AAC makes 2 million per team on theirs and the AAC actually has a real clause in theirs that allows for future renegotiation (VS other conferences that have been said to have had those, but in reality did not)

I will be the first to say the MAC is probably better than many give them credit for, but just saying that shows what most people think of the MAC

and just about everyone out there would say the AAC is a better conference overall (and the TV people think so) and the vast majority of people would say the same about the MWC as well

the MWC TV deal is about 1.5 million per member as well which is better than the MAC

the MAC has some bowl tie ins, but many of them are "if needed" and only about 4 of them are sure things

the American has about the same with 1 fewer team

and name one major MAC rivalry game that gets any national exposure

again the MAC is not terrible, but they are hardly a conference that I think any conference or conference members are really looking to have as a goal

You must have missed my point. Obviously this will never happen, you don't need to write a novel detailing every reason why. But it's fun for fans to think about (whole point of this thread) because the leagues would operate similar to the MAC - very geographically focused, a bunch of rivalries, stability, decent tv deal, etc. It might not be appealing to the casual football fan (your point), but it's certainly a lot of fun for the member schools

(01-28-2014 04:35 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 11:52 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 09:33 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 09:24 AM)Usajags Wrote:  All the conference heads are chasing the all mighty dollar right now, and those alignments would never work because the footprint is to small and doesn't open enough TV markets for each conference. This is the downfall of college sports. Fans want to be able to travel to games, as the conferences have overgrown beyond reason, travel to away games have become a dream instead of the norm.

West Virginia fans are complaining about the Big 12, It won't be another year or so before Mizzou starts complaining about the SEC travel. And these are the big guys in big conferences.

The G5 will learn that the P5 revenue model doesn't work for them. Markets are still important, but the size of the footprint doesn't matter as much as market penetration. I think the G5-level conferences are going to figure out that fan accessibility is more important (and more lucrative) than the TV contracts they can get are going to be. With more regional footprints, you can get better ratings on regional networks than you can on national networks, probably to the point that the revenue would even-out.

I don't think that's true. The regionals simply pay less. However, if the G5 organized and negotiated their TV contract as a group (like the old CFA did), then the exact conference footprint would be less important. In fact, a conclave of all the conferences could be held at which the schools were reorganized into 4 conferences on the basis of geography without any loss of value based on footprints (since it was negotiated as a 64 team conglomerate--the contract footprint is the entire nation). Plus negotiation as a group means that half of all college football inventory falls under the control of one entity. That makes such an organization a pretty powerful player in the supply and demand equation.

You could use some discretion to make sure each of the 4 regional conferences have a competitive balance, enough solid markets, and enough bigger G5 names to keep TV happy.

If the G5 had the sense to jointly negotiate following the old NCAA/CFA model you would see a deal something like this.

National TV partner(s) would follow a different structure of payment. There would be a base fee and everyone would get a piece of the base fee just for playing (let's say $2 million each).
Then there would be a per game fee and that fee would be based upon the network carrying the game, the day of the week and the time slot. So Fresno vs. Boise State on ESPN on Thursday night would pay more than Arkansas State vs. Troy on ESPNU the same night. The fee would be split between the conference two schools playing. So if Louisiana vs. Arkansas State is on ESPN2 again this year, all the fee goes to the Sun Belt. If ESPNU picks up AState vs. Utah State the fee splits between the Sun Belt and MWC.

I think it could revolutionize the way weeknight games are done. ESPN experimented with scheduling MAC weeknight twin-bills. They'd pick two games for say Tuesday night and then when it got close, whichever game was the most attractive would go to ESPN and the other would go to ESPNU. Imagine being able to do that with multiple conferences. Say the deal is with Fox and they partner with CBS Sports (much like Fox and ESPN partnered on the Pac-12). They put tab Georgia State vs. USA, NIU vs. Ball State and ODU vs. FIU for Thursday night. About two weeks out they make the call, one game goes to FS1, one goes to FS2, and the other goes to CBSS. It allows them to flex as the year goes on.

But a G5 partnership has even greater potential. Right now ESPN Regional owns or is in the process of negotiating for ownership of 11 bowl games. Most are G5 affiliated. What if you pulled the G5 affiliation from those games? Most are DOA with no one to play them. Bundle into the G5 deal the TV partner will carry and jointly with the G5 manage 15 bowl games spread across the country. Each league is guaranteed five placements (after the access bowl pick) available to the G5 Association bowls. The five commissioners and the TV folks sit down they sketch out the picks late in the season trying to create the best TV match-ups that also respect geography as much as possible. Then they fill in from the conferences based on the number of available teams.

You eliminate the concept that this bowl is MAC vs. Sun Belt and that bowl is Sun Belt vs. MAC instead you know this bowl is two teams from some mix of AAC, CUSA, MAC, MWC, Sun Belt. Get better match-ups that sell more tickets and in the long-run everyone wins.

Take the New Orleans Bowl this year. If those circumstances had come together one year later, that match-up doesn't happen yet it was great box office.

I think you could even go further with the bowl idea. I've discussed on multiple occasions having the G5 dump some CFP money into 2 or 3 of those bowls with the idea of paying a power conference #3/4 selection as opponents for G5 champs. You would then have a solid signature bowl for each conference champ every post season. If we owned those bowls, the profits from the bowl likely make the creation of the signature bowls cost very little (we may even make money).

(01-29-2014 05:41 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 04:25 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 02:50 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  1. getting 64 teams together to negotiate for "half the content" of college football just gives the networks a chance to low ball the 64 teams for half of the content of college football......there is no shortage of content there is a shortage of hours in the day that people can sit in front of the TV and watch football and the number of channels they can watch at one time
...........

What you just described sounds a lot like the MAC. Regional teams, a bunch of rivalries, perennial bottom dwellers, etc.

The problem with the rest of the ish you wrote is that the MAC as a conference has been very successful. They have TV, they have bowl bids, they have stability, they have had Top25 teams, etc

the MAC makes 1 million per team on their new TV deal

the AAC makes 2 million per team on theirs and the AAC actually has a real clause in theirs that allows for future renegotiation (VS other conferences that have been said to have had those, but in reality did not)

I will be the first to say the MAC is probably better than many give them credit for, but just saying that shows what most people think of the MAC

and just about everyone out there would say the AAC is a better conference overall (and the TV people think so) and the vast majority of people would say the same about the MWC as well

the MWC TV deal is about 1.5 million per member as well which is better than the MAC

the MAC has some bowl tie ins, but many of them are "if needed" and only about 4 of them are sure things

the American has about the same with 1 fewer team

and name one major MAC rivalry game that gets any national exposure

again the MAC is not terrible, but they are hardly a conference that I think any conference or conference members are really looking to have as a goal

Where do you get this stuff? The MAC doesn't have a "new" deal. Their current deal is for 1 million for the ENTIRE conference. That's less than 100K per team per year. They are supposedly renogtiating an extension for that deal---but there is nothing done that Im aware of.

The MAC has 4 to 5 actual bowl ties per year with 13 teams. The AAC has 6-7 per year for 11 teams (bumping up to 12 teams in 2015).

(01-29-2014 07:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 05:41 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 04:25 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 02:50 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  1. getting 64 teams together to negotiate for "half the content" of college football just gives the networks a chance to low ball the 64 teams for half of the content of college football......there is no shortage of content there is a shortage of hours in the day that people can sit in front of the TV and watch football and the number of channels they can watch at one time
...........

What you just described sounds a lot like the MAC. Regional teams, a bunch of rivalries, perennial bottom dwellers, etc.

The problem with the rest of the ish you wrote is that the MAC as a conference has been very successful. They have TV, they have bowl bids, they have stability, they have had Top25 teams, etc

the MAC makes 1 million per team on their new TV deal

the AAC makes 2 million per team on theirs and the AAC actually has a real clause in theirs that allows for future renegotiation (VS other conferences that have been said to have had those, but in reality did not)

I will be the first to say the MAC is probably better than many give them credit for, but just saying that shows what most people think of the MAC

and just about everyone out there would say the AAC is a better conference overall (and the TV people think so) and the vast majority of people would say the same about the MWC as well

the MWC TV deal is about 1.5 million per member as well which is better than the MAC

the MAC has some bowl tie ins, but many of them are "if needed" and only about 4 of them are sure things

the American has about the same with 1 fewer team

and name one major MAC rivalry game that gets any national exposure

again the MAC is not terrible, but they are hardly a conference that I think any conference or conference members are really looking to have as a goal

Where do you get this stuff? The MAC doesn't have a "new" deal. Their current deal is for 1 million for the ENTIRE conference. That's less than 100K per team per year. They are supposedly renogtiating an extension for that deal---but there is nothing done that Im aware of.

The MAC has 4 to 5 actual bowl ties per year with 13 teams. The AAC has 6-7 per year for 11 teams (bumping up to 12 teams in 2015).

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130...intentions

A new Mid-American Conference television contract will help, providing about $1 million to each member after this year.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-650027.html

http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2013/...rting.html

feel free to go through the above yourself and pick out what years each conference perhaps might maybe get that bowl slot or what years they get it against who, but the reality is there are about 4 bowl games where the MAC is in them every year and a couple of more maybe for the American and some of the bowls listed have not even been approved or shown they can get started or get on the air

so before anyone says the Bahamas Bowl and the Camalina Oil Bowl are sure things lets see them actually put on a game for at least one season much less last beyond that season......and "Beefs" has already pulled out of sponsoring a bowl as well

so again feel free to weed through all of that and let us know who gets what for each year much less what bowls will actually happen and what conference will actually place teams in those bowls

and the real point is that the MAC is really not a very high bar for "success" as a conference if you are trying to do things to improve conference position and the payoff for teams being in a particular conference

much less the fact that many of those same people that talk about how fun it would be to have a conference with mostly Texas teams or teams in a very close nit grouping are the same ones that make fun of TCU now being a bottom dweller in the Big 12 and they believe it is because TCU does not have the resources to compete (never mind that TCU does not have the lowest budget in the Big 12 and that Baylor has competed well in all sports except football for years in the Big 12 and is now also competing well in the Big 12 in football) it is because TCU now has nothing to offer that is any different than Baylor or several other Big 12 teams

and that is what happens in all close nit conferences with too many teams in a general area (just like the SWC and similar to how Texas A&M and Baylor were whipping boys in the Big 12 in football for many years)......when you sift to the bottom or when you have nothing different to offer you become subjected to becoming a bottom feeder

and the reality is Texas A&M is recruiting well in the SEC for now because they offer something new and different to Texas recruits, but their on the field performance has really not been that special from the point of view of a top level SEC team or Texas or OU type programs unless you consider special placing 3rd in your conference division and going to the Cotton Bowl or 4th and going to the Peach Bowl (which would be marginal seasons for OU, Texas, Alabama, Auburn, LSU and the like)

so there is where I got the TV money from and there is where the bowl games (of some of them happen) comes from feel free to sort the bowl mess yourself

and again if the MAC is a conference standard of achievement for some be prepared to drop down to D1-A.5 at some point in the future and getting a bunch of teams close by together to beat up on each other gets you the attention and fan support of the MAC......which is marginal at best even is some MAC teams have good years

(01-29-2014 08:02 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 07:36 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 05:41 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 04:25 PM)YouCanUseaMint Wrote:  

(01-29-2014 02:50 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  1. getting 64 teams together to negotiate for "half the content" of college football just gives the networks a chance to low ball the 64 teams for half of the content of college football......there is no shortage of content there is a shortage of hours in the day that people can sit in front of the TV and watch football and the number of channels they can watch at one time
...........

What you just described sounds a lot like the MAC. Regional teams, a bunch of rivalries, perennial bottom dwellers, etc.

The problem with the rest of the ish you wrote is that the MAC as a conference has been very successful. They have TV, they have bowl bids, they have stability, they have had Top25 teams, etc

the MAC makes 1 million per team on their new TV deal

the AAC makes 2 million per team on theirs and the AAC actually has a real clause in theirs that allows for future renegotiation (VS other conferences that have been said to have had those, but in reality did not)

I will be the first to say the MAC is probably better than many give them credit for, but just saying that shows what most people think of the MAC

and just about everyone out there would say the AAC is a better conference overall (and the TV people think so) and the vast majority of people would say the same about the MWC as well

the MWC TV deal is about 1.5 million per member as well which is better than the MAC

the MAC has some bowl tie ins, but many of them are "if needed" and only about 4 of them are sure things

the American has about the same with 1 fewer team

and name one major MAC rivalry game that gets any national exposure

again the MAC is not terrible, but they are hardly a conference that I think any conference or conference members are really looking to have as a goal

Where do you get this stuff? The MAC doesn't have a "new" deal. Their current deal is for 1 million for the ENTIRE conference. That's less than 100K per team per year. They are supposedly renogtiating an extension for that deal---but there is nothing done that Im aware of.

The MAC has 4 to 5 actual bowl ties per year with 13 teams. The AAC has 6-7 per year for 11 teams (bumping up to 12 teams in 2015).

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20130...intentions

A new Mid-American Conference television contract will help, providing about $1 million to each member after this year.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-650027.html

http://mattsarzsports.blogspot.com/2013/...rting.html

feel free to go through the above yourself and pick out what years each conference perhaps might maybe get that bowl slot or what years they get it against who, but the reality is there are about 4 bowl games where the MAC is in them every year and a couple of more maybe for the American and some of the bowls listed have not even been approved or shown they can get started or get on the air

so before anyone says the Bahamas Bowl and the Camalina Oil Bowl are sure things lets see them actually put on a game for at least one season much less last beyond that season......and "Beefs" has already pulled out of sponsoring a bowl as well

so again feel free to weed through all of that and let us know who gets what for each year much less what bowls will actually happen and what conference will actually place teams in those bowls

and the real point is that the MAC is really not a very high bar for "success" as a conference if you are trying to do things to improve conference position and the payoff for teams being in a particular conference

much less the fact that many of those same people that talk about how fun it would be to have a conference with mostly Texas teams or teams in a very close nit grouping are the same ones that make fun of TCU now being a bottom dweller in the Big 12 and they believe it is because TCU does not have the resources to compete (never mind that TCU does not have the lowest budget in the Big 12 and that Baylor has competed well in all sports except football for years in the Big 12 and is now also competing well in the Big 12 in football) it is because TCU now has nothing to offer that is any different than Baylor or several other Big 12 teams

and that is what happens in all close nit conferences with too many teams in a general area (just like the SWC and similar to how Texas A&M and Baylor were whipping boys in the Big 12 in football for many years)......when you sift to the bottom or when you have nothing different to offer you become subjected to becoming a bottom feeder

and the reality is Texas A&M is recruiting well in the SEC for now because they offer something new and different to Texas recruits, but their on the field performance has really not been that special from the point of view of a top level SEC team or Texas or OU type programs unless you consider special placing 3rd in your conference division and going to the Cotton Bowl or 4th and going to the Peach Bowl (which would be marginal seasons for OU, Texas, Alabama, Auburn, LSU and the like)

so there is where I got the TV money from and there is where the bowl games (of some of them happen) comes from feel free to sort the bowl mess yourself

and again if the MAC is a conference standard of achievement for some be prepared to drop down to D1-A.5 at some point in the future and getting a bunch of teams close by together to beat up on each other gets you the attention and fan support of the MAC......which is marginal at best even is some MAC teams have good years

The AAC lineup by year is at the bottom of the article.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/bl...86160.post

Neither the MAC nor ESPN have announced a new contract agreement. A million per year may be the expectation of MAC members for a new agreement, but no such agreement has yet been announced.

Once the P5 conferences suck most of the money out of the network's checking accounts the G5 guys will be forced to deal with the reality that survival is going to depend on regional games that puts fannies in the seats and internet TV streaming.

(01-29-2014 11:31 PM)Wild Bill Kelso Wrote:  Once the P5 conferences suck most of the money out of the network's checking accounts the G5 guys will be forced to deal with the reality that survival is going to depend on regional games that puts fannies in the seats and internet TV streaming.

lol..College football makes peanuts next to the pros. The P5 cant even dent a network account.

(01-29-2014 05:41 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  again the MAC is not terrible, but they are hardly a conference that I think any conference or conference members are really looking to have as a goal

We have lots of goals. Some of them include survival and not getting into a position Idaho and NMSU were in...and also not losing ground we have already gained.

Not our biggest goals...not our sexiest goals...yet very important ones.

Right now we are in a conference that has been raided for several programs and has few good options left for further backfill.

We have more than one fan base in the conference that are actively hoping for more raids and more damage to the conference on a bet that they will get lucky and not be the ones left holding the bag. Damn the consequences.

This is why looking at the MAC is a reasonable reaction. It may not meet every goal...but it meets a very important one. It is not suicidal.

(01-28-2014 09:33 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 09:24 AM)Usajags Wrote:  All the conference heads are chasing the all mighty dollar right now, and those alignments would never work because the footprint is to small and doesn't open enough TV markets for each conference. This is the downfall of college sports. Fans want to be able to travel to games, as the conferences have overgrown beyond reason, travel to away games have become a dream instead of the norm.

West Virginia fans are complaining about the Big 12, It won't be another year or so before Mizzou starts complaining about the SEC travel. And these are the big guys in big conferences.

The G5 will learn that the P5 revenue model doesn't work for them. Markets are still important, but the size of the footprint doesn't matter as much as market penetration. I think the G5-level conferences are going to figure out that fan accessibility is more important (and more lucrative) than the TV contracts they can get are going to be. With more regional footprints, you can get better ratings on regional networks than you can on national networks, probably to the point that the revenue would even-out.

MWC - add Idaho; drop UNM
CUSA - add UNM, NMSU, Texas State, SMU, Houston, Tulsa, Tulane; drop Marshall, ODU, Charlotte, FAU, FIU, MTSU, WKU
American - add FAU, FIU, ODU, UMass; drop SMU, Houston, Tulsa, Tulane
MAC - add Marshall; drop UMass
SBC - add Charlotte, MTSU, WKU; drop Idaho, NMSU, Texas State

(01-28-2014 09:19 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 09:14 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 08:28 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  Kentucky, Vanderbilt, and Tennessee are close trips or at least the same distance or closer than going to Oklahoma. Not to mention Missourians travel to Tennessee for vacations a lot. Every airport in Missouri has flights to Atlanta. East division travel is fairly easy for Missouri fans. Not to mention Arkansas is now a yearly game.

You poor bastages. I like TN and all, but I really don't consider that a vacation destination!

I should have those weekend/3 day trips. Nashville, Memphis/Tunica, and Smoky Mountains are pretty popular for Missourians.

I understand all the destinations besides Memphis, not a fan of Memphis at all; lived in Franklin just south of Nashville for 6 years


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(01-30-2014 09:35 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 09:33 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 09:24 AM)Usajags Wrote:  All the conference heads are chasing the all mighty dollar right now, and those alignments would never work because the footprint is to small and doesn't open enough TV markets for each conference. This is the downfall of college sports. Fans want to be able to travel to games, as the conferences have overgrown beyond reason, travel to away games have become a dream instead of the norm.

West Virginia fans are complaining about the Big 12, It won't be another year or so before Mizzou starts complaining about the SEC travel. And these are the big guys in big conferences.

The G5 will learn that the P5 revenue model doesn't work for them. Markets are still important, but the size of the footprint doesn't matter as much as market penetration. I think the G5-level conferences are going to figure out that fan accessibility is more important (and more lucrative) than the TV contracts they can get are going to be. With more regional footprints, you can get better ratings on regional networks than you can on national networks, probably to the point that the revenue would even-out.

MWC - add Idaho; drop UNM
CUSA - add UNM, NMSU, Texas State, SMU, Houston, Tulsa, Tulane; drop Marshall, ODU, Charlotte, FAU, FIU, MTSU, WKU
American - add FAU, FIU, ODU, UMass; drop SMU, Houston, Tulsa, Tulane
MAC - add Marshall; drop UMass
SBC - add Charlotte, MTSU, WKU; drop Idaho, NMSU, Texas State

Idaho will not be added to the MWC. Idaho will be playing in the Big Sky.

(01-30-2014 09:35 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 09:33 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 09:24 AM)Usajags Wrote:  All the conference heads are chasing the all mighty dollar right now, and those alignments would never work because the footprint is to small and doesn't open enough TV markets for each conference. This is the downfall of college sports. Fans want to be able to travel to games, as the conferences have overgrown beyond reason, travel to away games have become a dream instead of the norm.

West Virginia fans are complaining about the Big 12, It won't be another year or so before Mizzou starts complaining about the SEC travel. And these are the big guys in big conferences.

The G5 will learn that the P5 revenue model doesn't work for them. Markets are still important, but the size of the footprint doesn't matter as much as market penetration. I think the G5-level conferences are going to figure out that fan accessibility is more important (and more lucrative) than the TV contracts they can get are going to be. With more regional footprints, you can get better ratings on regional networks than you can on national networks, probably to the point that the revenue would even-out.

MWC - add Idaho; drop UNM
CUSA - add UNM, NMSU, Texas State, SMU, Houston, Tulsa, Tulane; drop Marshall, ODU, Charlotte, FAU, FIU, MTSU, WKU
American - add FAU, FIU, ODU, UMass; drop SMU, Houston, Tulsa, Tulane
MAC - add Marshall; drop UMass
SBC - add Charlotte, MTSU, WKU; drop Idaho, NMSU, Texas State

MWC- add UTEP and NMSU
CUSA- add JMU, Texas State and A-State (lose UTEP, Rice, and UTSA)
AAC- add Rice and UTSA (lose Cinn and ?)
MAC-sit pat
SBC- add Liberty, Missouri St, Lamar, and Sam Houston (lose NMSU, Texas State, and AState)

(01-30-2014 09:35 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 09:33 AM)Panthersville Wrote:  

(01-28-2014 09:24 AM)Usajags Wrote:  All the conference heads are chasing the all mighty dollar right now, and those alignments would never work because the footprint is to small and doesn't open enough TV markets for each conference. This is the downfall of college sports. Fans want to be able to travel to games, as the conferences have overgrown beyond reason, travel to away games have become a dream instead of the norm.

West Virginia fans are complaining about the Big 12, It won't be another year or so before Mizzou starts complaining about the SEC travel. And these are the big guys in big conferences.

The G5 will learn that the P5 revenue model doesn't work for them. Markets are still important, but the size of the footprint doesn't matter as much as market penetration. I think the G5-level conferences are going to figure out that fan accessibility is more important (and more lucrative) than the TV contracts they can get are going to be. With more regional footprints, you can get better ratings on regional networks than you can on national networks, probably to the point that the revenue would even-out.

MWC - add Idaho; drop UNM
CUSA - add UNM, NMSU, Texas State, SMU, Houston, Tulsa, Tulane; drop Marshall, ODU, Charlotte, FAU, FIU, MTSU, WKU
American - add FAU, FIU, ODU, UMass; drop SMU, Houston, Tulsa, Tulane
MAC - add Marshall; drop UMass
SBC - add Charlotte, MTSU, WKU; drop Idaho, NMSU, Texas State

The MAC is not that stupid to take Marshall back for the third time.

Sent from my SPH-M840 using Tapatalk