We've heard about every possible candidate for CUSA at this point. A few of us have suggested CUSA goes to 16 teams and that usually includes some form of New Mexico State and UMass both as part of the solution.

What if CUSA instead added 3 replacement schools to the West? Louisiana, Texas State and New Mexico State. By doing this it accomplishes a few things:

1) West schools have complained about not being able to host championships in Texas. By adding 3 western additions its tilts the voting heavily in their favor.

2) It pushes Southern Miss to the East division and makes CUSA East feel more like CUSA with a traditional school. Southern Miss from what I understand is more comfortable in the East even if LaTech/ULL are closer.

3) Deals the SBC a big hit. The SBC would be down to 7 all sport FB schools and will have to expand. The only school that will join the SBC unconditionally is Liberty. A lot of schools I bet are going to be leery about moving up right now because of the full cost of attendance. Idaho and UMass will have to be retained as FB Only members just to keep membership afloat at 10.

Other than New Mexico State and possibly Louisiana, this does nothing for C-USA basketball. UTEP also has a history of avoiding conference affiliation with NMSU, so it may encourage them to leave C-USA.

Looking at CUSA on the map:



The CUSA East is more geographically coherent next season than it was last season ... a Mid-South division with an island in South Florida and its rich recruiting grounds.

With UAB shutting down, CUSA West can become more geographically coherent than it was going to be with UAB moving over, if it adds a school that makes geographic sense for the Western division.

NMSU is not that school ... it would, in fact, be building a two school island in the rich recruiting grounds of far western Texas and far SE New Mexico, except for the inconvenient fact that its not rich recruiting grounds, which makes it quite insane.

ULouisiana makes a lot of sense, and Louisiana is a top ten recruiting state, but probably faces headwinds from Rice, LA Tech and USM, each of whom seem to think that they are close enough to have access to that part of Louisiana, and would rather be recruiting there against ULousiana in the Sunbelt than ULouisiana as a conference rival.

AR State, Texas State, and USA all have their pros and their cons, but any of the three would make for a more geographically coherent division than what CUSA was planning with the UAB move to the West.

In the end, the most important information for the decision is which option prospective media partners find most appealing, and while there will be endless speculation on that point until the final decision is made, it seems likely that most of it will be idle speculation.

The danger in having two geographically coherent divisions which are not, in any real sense, neighboring geographic areas is the risk of polarizing on divisional lines. Building brand equity as a conference with regular cross-division play is one additional substantial reason to refrain from a 16 member conference unless a media partner says the line-up is a home run that they will pay big bucks for (and as we saw with the Old Big East, even if a conference is glued together on that basis, it can still fracture along its fault lines if the hoped for money fails to materialize in some future bargaining round).

Assuming Memphis and Cincy to the Big12, and UAB gone, how about combining the AAC with C-USA and some others. Also realize that kicking a school to the curb isn't going to happen; bad politics.

Tinkering with geography in mind, I came up with this:
Temple
UMass
Connecticut
Army

Navy
Charlotte
Old Dominion
East Carolina

Western Kentucky
Marshall
Middle Tennessee
Appy State

USM
Tulane
Louisiana Tech
ULaLa
Arkansas State
Tulsa

North Texas
Rice
Texas-San Antonio
Texas-El Paso
Houston
SMU

South Florida
Central Florida
Florida Atlantic
Florida International

Schools in 6 team divisions have one permanent rival in another division. Schools in 4 team divisions will have 3 permanent rivals. (Obviously Army-Navy would never be disturbed.) Would never happen, but it would command a bunch of TV sets. It would have it's own playoff to crown a champion. Devil would be in the details.

(12-07-2014 11:19 AM)USM@FTL Wrote:  Assuming Memphis and Cincy to the Big12, and UAB gone, how about combining the AAC with C-USA and some others. Also realize that kicking a school to the curb isn't going to happen; bad politics.

Tinkering with geography in mind, I came up with this:
Temple
UMass
Connecticut
Army

Navy
Charlotte
Old Dominion
East Carolina

Western Kentucky
Marshall
Middle Tennessee
Appy State

USM
Tulane
Louisiana Tech
ULaLa
Arkansas State
Tulsa

North Texas
Rice
Texas-San Antonio
Texas-El Paso
Houston
SMU

South Florida
Central Florida
Florida Atlantic
Florida International

Schools in 6 team divisions have one permanent rival in another division. Schools in 4 team divisions will have 3 permanent rivals. (Obviously Army-Navy would never be disturbed.) Would never happen, but it would command a bunch of TV sets. It would have it's own playoff to crown a champion. Devil would be in the details.

Not no. But hell no.

Umass as a football only and keep UAB is a pretty good move. I think they could still expand to 16 with 2 full members to cut travel. Looking at the map, putting any 2 in the west from UL, texas state, arkansas state, missouri state, new mexico state or south alabama would work.

(12-07-2014 07:43 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Looking at CUSA on the map:



The CUSA East is more geographically coherent next season than it was last season ... a Mid-South division with an island in South Florida and its rich recruiting grounds.

With UAB shutting down, CUSA West can become more geographically coherent than it was going to be with UAB moving over, if it adds a school that makes geographic sense for the Western division.

NMSU is not that school ... it would, in fact, be building a two school island in the rich recruiting grounds of far western Texas and far SE New Mexico, except for the inconvenient fact that its not rich recruiting grounds, which makes it quite insane.

ULouisiana makes a lot of sense, and Louisiana is a top ten recruiting state, but probably faces headwinds from Rice, LA Tech and USM, each of whom seem to think that they are close enough to have access to that part of Louisiana, and would rather be recruiting there against ULousiana in the Sunbelt than ULouisiana as a conference rival.

AR State, Texas State, and USA all have their pros and their cons, but any of the three would make for a more geographically coherent division than what CUSA was planning with the UAB move to the West.

You don't think NMSU should be in there and maybe they shouldn't at this point.

I like the idea of Southern Miss getting to be in a division with Marshall, MTSU, WKu and the Florida schools. They can then step in and recruit Alabama and Georgia to fill in the gap.

AState/ULL/Texas St would leave the SBC at 6 full time schools with NMSU/Idaho rounding out 8. It will be difficult to find 2 schools wanting and ready to join that dumpster fire.

The MAC could step in at that point and offer App St/Georgia Southern to put the dagger in the SBC. That would give the MAC East the schedule boost they've needed. It becomes like the WAC out west with a couple of FBS schools left in it that haven't been placed.

UMass
Georgia State
South Alabama
Troy
ULM
New Mexico State
Idaho

These schools can all survive playing each other, until there is some more realignment.

(12-07-2014 11:43 AM)bluesox Wrote:  Umass as a football only and keep UAB is a pretty good move. I think they could still expand to 16 with 2 full members to cut travel. Looking at the map, putting any 2 in the west from UL, texas state, arkansas state, missouri state, new mexico state or south alabama would work.

If you are going to go 2 in the West and 1 in the East....I would take Georgia Southern over South Alabama right now to say you have the state of Georgia covered but that is just me.

Georgia State has the Atlanta market but sounds like a UAB situation waiting in wings because of poor support and a rented stadium. You've got to go with Georgia Southern here and an instant boost of strength.

My only comment is that I doubt there's a real desire to deal a "hit" to the SBC.

Why you wanting to hurt the SBC?

(12-07-2014 12:23 PM)Dman Wrote:  Why you wanting to hurt the SBC?

Because if you are CUSA and you are looking at how Georgia Southern and Appalachian State performed this year you realize its only a matter of time before the SBC passes CUSA by as a football conference.

You also want to put the SBC in a position where they can't reload again with more schools to further dilute the Southern recruiting grounds. Instead of a weak SBC entry conference that is always pulling in from FCS make CUSA that gatekeeper.

I'd like to see Georgia Southern get serious consideration by CUSA if they go to 16, but the pecking order among the conferences isn't going to be changed all that dramatically regardless. CUSA isn't playing defense. They're very secure in their current status; though obviously not what it was before the defections, they harvested sufficient up-and-comer schools in or very near solid markets.

(12-07-2014 12:22 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  My only comment is that I doubt there's a real desire to deal a "hit" to the SBC.

I disagree.

Bankowsky WANTED to go to 16 and it was widely believed his targets were Arkansas State and Louisiana.

At the time that encompassed all the football success the Sun Belt had left but for Troy.

There are a number of reasons to try to take someone out of business.

First is CFP.

Right now the CFP distributes $59 million ($60 million max) to the five leagues capped at $12 million per. If there are four leagues that distribution can go to $15 million per conference.

The performance bonus pool is $24 million. 1st gets $8 million, 2nd gets $6.4 million, 3rd gets $4.8 million, 4th gets $3.2 million, 5th gets $1.6 million.

If there are four leagues the performance pool becomes: $9.6 million for first, $7.2 million for 2nd, $4.8 million for 3rd, $2.4 million for 4th.

If there are four leagues rather than five, the networks have less leverage in filling content and if a league is larger, the impact of week night games is spread across more schools.

Don't rule out historic and economic reasons either.

Remember the old SWC was Arkansas and Texas. The Southland most its history has been Arkansas-Texas and later Louisiana. Until they ran out of teams the TAAC (now ASun) featured Arkansas Texas and Louisiana schools. The Lone Star was Arkansas-Texas for a time, until Hendrix left the Division III SCAC was Arkansas Texas Louisiana.

There are seven Division I leagues with a presence in Texas: Big XII, SEC, AAC, CUSA, Sun Belt, SWAC, and WAC. Three have a presence in Arkansas and two have tried (Big XII and WAC) and arguably three if you count Bankowsky's failed push for 16.

(12-07-2014 01:02 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 12:22 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  My only comment is that I doubt there's a real desire to deal a "hit" to the SBC.

I disagree.

Bankowsky WANTED to go to 16 and it was widely believed his targets were Arkansas State and Louisiana.

At the time that encompassed all the football success the Sun Belt had left but for Troy.

There are a number of reasons to try to take someone out of business.

First is CFP.

Right now the CFP distributes $59 million ($60 million max) to the five leagues capped at $12 million per. If there are four leagues that distribution can go to $15 million per conference.

The performance bonus pool is $24 million. 1st gets $8 million, 2nd gets $6.4 million, 3rd gets $4.8 million, 4th gets $3.2 million, 5th gets $1.6 million.

If there are four leagues the performance pool becomes: $9.6 million for first, $7.2 million for 2nd, $4.8 million for 3rd, $2.4 million for 4th.

Um. So, wait. How does this help Banowsky?

His conference is the 3rd or 4th in the current set-up... assuming your numbers are correct, they're getting the same amount if they're 3rd, and getting even less for being 4th... and worse, they have to split the pie to even thinner slices for every school.

Only if he saw expansion to yield a school or two that consistently would give CUSA a better shot at #1 or #2 would that be impetus, and even at that, we're talking only $800,000... divided by 16, that's $50,000 more per school... nice, but relatively speaking chump change even where non-con5 budgets are concerned.

And even in that case, it's not about damaging SBC... it's about putting yourself in a position to challenge AAC and MWC... SBC just happens to be the loser in the pursuit, assuming it went that way.

The Big 12 getting shafted by the playoff committee certainly sets up the possibility of some programs relocating, but I don't think C-USA needs to be effected. If UAB is forced to end their program, that will be a terrible thing, but it doesn't mean C-USA has to add another program. At 13 football teams, the conference could easily operate with unbalanced divisions and still have a championship game. Also, by not replacing UAB, each member will see their portion of the conference payout increase.

The AAC doesn't command the large media deal it did as the Big East, and I believe C-USA raised their conference buy-outs, in an effort to curtail future raids by the AAC.

Personally, I'm hoping for stability in the G5.

(12-07-2014 09:22 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  The Big 12 getting shafted by the playoff committee certainly sets up the possibility of some programs relocating, but I don't think C-USA needs to be effected. If UAB is forced to end their program, that will be a terrible thing, but it doesn't mean C-USA has to add another program. At 13 football teams, the conference could easily operate with unbalanced divisions and still have a championship game. Also, by not replacing UAB, each member will see their portion of the conference payout increase.

The AAC doesn't command the large media deal it did as the Big East, and I believe C-USA raised their conference buy-outs, in an effort to curtail future raids by the AAC.

Personally, I'm hoping for stability in the G5.

13 is so easy that MAC went and got UMass to deal with the hassle and then booted UMass when Temple left.

You can't play an 8 game slate and have everyone play everyone in their division.

(12-07-2014 09:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 09:22 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  The Big 12 getting shafted by the playoff committee certainly sets up the possibility of some programs relocating, but I don't think C-USA needs to be effected. If UAB is forced to end their program, that will be a terrible thing, but it doesn't mean C-USA has to add another program. At 13 football teams, the conference could easily operate with unbalanced divisions and still have a championship game. Also, by not replacing UAB, each member will see their portion of the conference payout increase.

The AAC doesn't command the large media deal it did as the Big East, and I believe C-USA raised their conference buy-outs, in an effort to curtail future raids by the AAC.

Personally, I'm hoping for stability in the G5.

13 is so easy that MAC went and got UMass to deal with the hassle and then booted UMass when Temple left.

You can't play an 8 game slate and have everyone play everyone in their division.

The 13 team lineup can work. The MAC has played with 13 teams since 2007. It not only can be done, it is currently being done.

(12-07-2014 09:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 09:22 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  The Big 12 getting shafted by the playoff committee certainly sets up the possibility of some programs relocating, but I don't think C-USA needs to be effected. If UAB is forced to end their program, that will be a terrible thing, but it doesn't mean C-USA has to add another program. At 13 football teams, the conference could easily operate with unbalanced divisions and still have a championship game. Also, by not replacing UAB, each member will see their portion of the conference payout increase.

The AAC doesn't command the large media deal it did as the Big East, and I believe C-USA raised their conference buy-outs, in an effort to curtail future raids by the AAC.

Personally, I'm hoping for stability in the G5.

13 is so easy that MAC went and got UMass to deal with the hassle and then booted UMass when Temple left.

You can't play an 8 game slate and have everyone play everyone in their division.

Issues with 13 schools.

1) You have to get a waiver by the NCAA to have 13.
2) It really messes up the conference schedule.
3) The TV contract specifies 14 most likely.

UAB leaving in football such short notice like that forces CUSA's hand to expand immediately. We may hear something as soon as the next couple of weeks about it.

In-fighting within the g5 strengthens the P5, congrats guys. Go watch the movie Goodwill Hunting you may learn a valuable lesson.

(12-07-2014 09:37 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 09:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 09:22 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  The Big 12 getting shafted by the playoff committee certainly sets up the possibility of some programs relocating, but I don't think C-USA needs to be effected. If UAB is forced to end their program, that will be a terrible thing, but it doesn't mean C-USA has to add another program. At 13 football teams, the conference could easily operate with unbalanced divisions and still have a championship game. Also, by not replacing UAB, each member will see their portion of the conference payout increase.

The AAC doesn't command the large media deal it did as the Big East, and I believe C-USA raised their conference buy-outs, in an effort to curtail future raids by the AAC.

Personally, I'm hoping for stability in the G5.

13 is so easy that MAC went and got UMass to deal with the hassle and then booted UMass when Temple left.

You can't play an 8 game slate and have everyone play everyone in their division.

Issues with 13 schools.

1) You have to get a waiver by the NCAA to have 13.
2) It really messes up the conference schedule.
3) The TV contract specifies 14 most likely.

UAB leaving in football such short notice like that forces CUSA's hand to expand immediately. We may hear something as soon as the next couple of weeks about it.

The TV contract likely specifies what states are represented. You don't lose Alabama as you have programs in states which border AL. Of the three issues mentioned only the scheduling item is relevant.