(08-12-2021 12:19 AM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(08-11-2021 11:03 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  You have won 1 CUSA championship so go lay down somewhere.... for the record that’s the only championship CUSA West has won. Just another reason the East needs to break away.

All the top basketball programs and fan bases are in the East... yet for someone reason our tournament is held in Texas. You have Marshall, ODU, and WKU all averaging around 6k/game while Texas schools average maybe 2k/game but we have the tournament in Texas. Such a joke.

I guess you are free to believe UNT doesn't hold the last two C-USA titles... but the official C-USA website seems to report that we hold the 2019-20 Regular Season Title and the 2020-21 Conference Tournament Title.

https://conferenceusa.com/documents/2021...20_21_.pdf

In your opinion the east has the best programs, but I contend that currently UNT, LA Tech, and UAB are collectively just as good as WKU, Marshall, and ODU. As for your huge fan bases... congratulations. Glad your attendance is strong.

Now, back to my question that you didn't answer.... Can you name one current men's basketball program in all of C-USA that is doing more than UNT to elevate their basketball profile?

Lmao.. no one counts the regular season championship and you know it. ESP during a year where the conference schedules weren’t even close to being the same. But hey, if that makes you feel warm and fuzzy then by all means count it in your head.

(08-12-2021 08:28 AM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(08-11-2021 06:57 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  Oh baby. So glad to see all the responses. I wanna reply to every one of them, but by now that’s pointless.


Budgets and recruiting can increase as success and interest increases. Once that league gets going, playing the same quality of basketball NOW, without the “bad math” of the bottom of C-USA, that group is going to look strong and get stronger.

That group has an IDENTITY if they split, as opposed to the C-USA. One is building. C-USA adapted to losses and is surviving.

The back and forth of WHY the status is what it is for A-10/C-USA is fun, but the the core of your discussion is the A-10 has a CLEAR IDENTITY, where everyone knows exactly what the A-10 is.

The A-10 does have a diverse group of schools: Public, Private, Big, Small. VCU and Bonaventure are seemingly polar opposites. But they're the same in their identity: "We're going to be the best version of who we are, sell what makes this place special, and a huge part of that is basketball."

The A-10 budgets are higher? Yeah, because we had our identity locked in, never wavered, made money off that identity and we push each other to get better. Our budgets are bigger because WE BUILT THAT. (And we're not paying for expensive FBS football teams; although Dayton, Duquesne, Rhode Island, Fordham and Richmond have money-losing FCS teams).


By forming a New League, they'd be taking control of their own destiny. And that's going to excite all the fan bases. It's going to UNITE them in a way none of them have been united in C-USA. IS there any unity in C-USA? Do UTSA fans and WKU fans feel any kind of bond about being in C-USA together? (One of the things I love about the A-10 is that we're a basketball brotherhood. We barely fight anymore from January to Selection Sunday because we're so used to being A-10 vs the World from Selection Sunday til New Year's Eve).

Now, it's going to be a hell of a lot harder for a new league playing FBS football to build what the A-10 built, because they'd be be serving two masters, and we only serve basketball. But it's certainly worth the effort.

I think every school would benefit from just that excitement of starting a new league together, building it together and trying to improve their lot in college sports, rather than just keep doing what they've been doing. And the worst case scenario is the same results as now, just sharing money less ways

(Again, if the administrative NCAA rules part of it can be sorted out).

Oh, and yes, I know about the issues with Liberty, the point there was that you need 8 all-sports members to be an FBS conference, and you can't take 8 from C-USA without destroying them (unless C-USA expands by two first and then you split later). And if the New League is too risky for any member of the MAC or Sun Belt to join... Liberty has the Football/Basketball numbers that match the rest of you, AND they have a reason to say yes.

The A10’s relative success is derived from its place in the college basketball conference pecking order and the conference mostly making wise decisions about which schools to invite when replacements have been needed. The A10 has with a few exceptions added schools from lower level mid-majors that have a history of appearing in the NCAA tournament with some level of frequency and the institutional capacity to spend at a high mid-major or low high-major level. None of the CUSA members meet those criteria which is why they’d be a one-bid conference if they formed a new conference. None of those schools are remotely similar to Temple, Xavier, Dayton or VCU where basketball is concerned.

I would say the above is pretty accurate.

That is why I think a northeast focused conference which is centered around trying to provide a FB conference for Army and UConn is a more viable idea than splitting CUSA up for basketball. FB is more the path to a TV deal as is the larger Northeast markets.

For CUSA it will depend who is still there after this round of realignment. If they are down to 9 or 10 members they could stay pat or go back to 12.

They need to do something because at this point they are sinking fast.

(08-12-2021 11:35 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  They need to do something because at this point they are sinking fast.

Preseason rankings don’t mean anything, especially after last season. If that’s how we finish the season then we should def be concerned.

(08-12-2021 11:35 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  They need to do something because at this point they are sinking fast.

How about just start playing football in 2021? That should take care of the preseason rankings.

(08-12-2021 11:35 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  They need to do something because at this point they are sinking fast.

Sunbelt gonna be P6 once the XII get absorbed into power conferences.

(08-12-2021 02:52 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(08-12-2021 11:35 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  They need to do something because at this point they are sinking fast.

Sunbelt gonna be P6 once the XII get absorbed into power conferences.

Greater than 50% chance that the XII doesn't get "absorbed" at all.

Heck, if rumors equaled moves, Kansas would be in the PAC-12, Big Ten and ACC simultaneously, rather than being short odds for being in the Big 12 after all of the dust settled.

(08-11-2021 10:49 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  This kind of comical. You guys don't want to split so you can build a better basketball conference..... You just want a cheaper regional conference.

If you were really interested in acquiring the best basketball options in this proposed split, UNT would be one of the program you would target.

I'm not claiming UNT is the best program in C-USA, but we are certainly among the best currently. So, you guys are not interested in building the strongest possible basketball conference. Lets just stop pretending.

I said it before, I will say it again...
1. I'm not a C-USA guy.
2. You're absolutely right that if it was "Best Seven" than North Texas is invited (and Charlotte wouldn't be).

3. But it's a legal/logistical reason for the seven I listed. They can't take Eight. It has to be exactly seven. If you take 8 with UNT, then you're getting sued by C-USA and six schools in an instant because you just destroyed the conference. If you take the Best Seven, then you're leaving for the "Best Seven" reasons, and not "geography reasons."

They need the GEOGRAPHY EXCUSE as the jumping off point to build a better league so they're not getting sued by C-USA. People have been saying "C-USA East splits" but they can reasonably explain that FAU/FIU are much further distance from most the East schools than UAB is... it makes GEOGRAPHIC SENSE for Marshall, Old Dominion, Charlotte, Western Kentucky, Middle Tennessee and UAB to leave C-USA together.

And they need a seventh. Southern Miss is technically the shortest "as the crow flies" distance, but it's just slightly shorter than La Tech; and those numbers are close enough that they can make that call on football/basketball prowess. Taking North Texas as the seventh kinda kills their "Texas is too far" excuse.


And, BTW, this would probably be in the best interest of North Texas as well, because once that conference exists, avoids lawsuits, and C-USA stabilizes -- I'd imagine C-USA would immediately invite New Mexico State (travel partner with UTEP, football is currently independent) -- How long before UNT asks the New League to be considered for membership? And you cite all the reasons UNT would be accepted. Of course UNT would end up in the New League. It just can't be as a founding member.

(08-13-2021 04:04 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(08-11-2021 10:49 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  This kind of comical. You guys don't want to split so you can build a better basketball conference..... You just want a cheaper regional conference.

If you were really interested in acquiring the best basketball options in this proposed split, UNT would be one of the program you would target.

I'm not claiming UNT is the best program in C-USA, but we are certainly among the best currently. So, you guys are not interested in building the strongest possible basketball conference. Lets just stop pretending.

I said it before, I will say it again...
1. I'm not a C-USA guy.
2. You're absolutely right that if it was "Best Seven" than North Texas is invited (and Charlotte wouldn't be).

3. But it's a legal/logistical reason for the seven I listed. They can't take Eight. It has to be exactly seven. If you take 8 with UNT, then you're getting sued by C-USA and six schools in an instant because you just destroyed the conference.

No, that's not how the rules work. As long as Rump CUSA can scrape up 7 D-1 schools, they're still a conference. Rump CUSA would need to recruit or promote enough FBS schools to stay an FBS conference. (8 full FBS members)

Quote: If you take the Best Seven, then you're leaving for the "Best Seven" reasons, and not "geography reasons."

They need the GEOGRAPHY EXCUSE as the jumping off point to build a better league so they're not getting sued by C-USA. People have been saying "C-USA East splits" but they can reasonably explain that FAU/FIU are much further distance from most the East schools than UAB is... it makes GEOGRAPHIC SENSE for Marshall, Old Dominion, Charlotte, Western Kentucky, Middle Tennessee and UAB to leave C-USA together.

And they need a seventh. Southern Miss is technically the shortest "as the crow flies" distance, but it's just slightly shorter than La Tech; and those numbers are close enough that they can make that call on football/basketball prowess. Taking North Texas as the seventh kinda kills their "Texas is too far" excuse.


And, BTW, this would probably be in the best interest of North Texas as well, because once that conference exists, avoids lawsuits, and C-USA stabilizes -- I'd imagine C-USA would immediately invite New Mexico State (travel partner with UTEP, football is currently independent) -- How long before UNT asks the New League to be considered for membership? And you cite all the reasons UNT would be accepted. Of course UNT would end up in the New League. It just can't be as a founding member.

(08-12-2021 08:28 AM)LostInSpace Wrote:  The A10’s relative success is derived from its place in the college basketball conference pecking order and the conference mostly making wise decisions about which schools to invite when replacements have been needed. The A10 has with a few exceptions added schools from lower level mid-majors that have a history of appearing in the NCAA tournament with some level of frequency and the institutional capacity to spend at a high mid-major or low high-major level. None of the CUSA members meet those criteria which is why they’d be a one-bid conference if they formed a new conference. None of those schools are remotely similar to Temple, Xavier, Dayton or VCU where basketball is concerned.

I agree with most of that. Except the "one-bid" part.

You can go on my favorite A-10 message board from during the Big East split; when we lost Temple, Xavier, Butler and Charlotte; and everyone left the A-10 for dead as a one-bid league. And I was pretty much the only one on the planet saying that the A-10 was going to be EXACTLY THE SAME.

Very few people understand the concept of how exactly conference play dictates the NCAA Big Board in terms of the computer math (RPI, now NET).

With those March regulars Xavier, Temple, Butler (and Charlotte) the A-10 played .680 basketball in non-conference play every year. So their third place team was in the conversation for an NCAA bid because they were 13-5 in league, and 22-9 overall with good enough RPI/NET to get a bid.

Replacing those regulars with George Mason and Davidson, everyone said "one bid league." Without Xavier and Temple beating them twice, Dayton and Bonaventure went from 4th and 5th at 11-7 and 10-8 to second and third at 14-4 and 13-5, around 22-9 overall.

The key part was maintaining that RPI/NET math. And the New A-10 had teams who traditionally played .680 basketball in non-conference play! So they'd be around the same. And the A-10 bid train kept rolling.


The New League would probably average 1.75 bids per year. Should be 2 every year, but the committee cares about perception. If their RS champ won the conference tourney, their second team would be in First Four or NIT Host range every single year. If there's an upset, maybe they sneak 3 in.

Because that group together wins OOC games at much higher clip than the 14 current C-USA teams; and they're not playing the bottom of C-USA in conference play 8 to 10 times, lowering their SOS from conference games. They'd easily jump 20 spots in the NET.

(08-13-2021 04:50 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(08-12-2021 08:28 AM)LostInSpace Wrote:  The A10’s relative success is derived from its place in the college basketball conference pecking order and the conference mostly making wise decisions about which schools to invite when replacements have been needed. The A10 has with a few exceptions added schools from lower level mid-majors that have a history of appearing in the NCAA tournament with some level of frequency and the institutional capacity to spend at a high mid-major or low high-major level. None of the CUSA members meet those criteria which is why they’d be a one-bid conference if they formed a new conference. None of those schools are remotely similar to Temple, Xavier, Dayton or VCU where basketball is concerned.

I agree with most of that. Except the "one-bid" part.

You can go on my favorite A-10 message board from during the Big East split; when we lost Temple, Xavier, Butler and Charlotte; and everyone left the A-10 for dead as a one-bid league. And I was pretty much the only one on the planet saying that the A-10 was going to be EXACTLY THE SAME.

Very few people understand the concept of how exactly conference play dictates the NCAA Big Board in terms of the computer math (RPI, now NET).

With those March regulars Xavier, Temple, Butler (and Charlotte) the A-10 played .680 basketball in non-conference play every year. So their third place team was in the conversation for an NCAA bid because they were 13-5 in league, and 22-9 overall with good enough RPI/NET to get a bid.

Replacing those regulars with George Mason and Davidson, everyone said "one bid league." Without Xavier and Temple beating them twice, Dayton and Bonaventure went from 4th and 5th at 11-7 and 10-8 to second and third at 14-4 and 13-5, around 22-9 overall.

The key part was maintaining that RPI/NET math. And the New A-10 had teams who traditionally played .680 basketball in non-conference play! So they'd be around the same. And the A-10 bid train kept rolling.


The New League would probably average 1.75 bids per year. Should be 2 every year, but the committee cares about perception. If their RS champ won the conference tourney, their second team would be in First Four or NIT Host range every single year. If there's an upset, maybe they sneak 3 in.

Because that group together wins OOC games at much higher clip than the 14 current C-USA teams; and they're not playing the bottom of C-USA in conference play 8 to 10 times, lowering their SOS from conference games. They'd easily jump 20 spots in the NET.

I didn’t think the A10 would end up one-bid either. I thought they might drop below 3.25 bids which they averaged during the Temple / Xavier years. I’m thinking the A10 is probably a 2.75 bid conference at this point, though I might be proven wrong.

We’re not likely to find out what that group could do as I’m not confident this conference ever comes into being. I’m less confident than you are that group is capable of sustaining a good OOC record. No big budgets in that group like Dayton, VCU and SLU have. Money gets you less coaching turnover, buy games and more neutral site games against power conference teams. Winning in sports is hugely correlated with spending and that theoretical conference is all one bid (aka Juan Bid from the old A10 board) budgets.

(08-12-2021 08:19 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-12-2021 02:52 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(08-12-2021 11:35 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  They need to do something because at this point they are sinking fast.

Sunbelt gonna be P6 once the XII get absorbed into power conferences.

Greater than 50% chance that the XII doesn't get "absorbed" at all.

Heck, if rumors equaled moves, Kansas would be in the PAC-12, Big Ten and ACC simultaneously, rather than being short odds for being in the Big 12 after all of the dust settled.

Thats what I think. The Big12 will rebuild around its current 8 team core. The AAC will lose 2 to 4 of its top teams and, given the weak pool of replacement teams, will probably just replace enough to get back to 10. Unfortunately, a 2 to 4 team raid by the Big12 will be a critical set back to the near decade long impressive rise in overall quality of AAC football and basketball. If the MW gets through this realignment round with no damage---they might be back on top of the non-power heap just in time for the 12 team playoff with a G5 slot.

(08-13-2021 04:04 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(08-11-2021 10:49 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  This kind of comical. You guys don't want to split so you can build a better basketball conference..... You just want a cheaper regional conference.

If you were really interested in acquiring the best basketball options in this proposed split, UNT would be one of the program you would target.

I'm not claiming UNT is the best program in C-USA, but we are certainly among the best currently. So, you guys are not interested in building the strongest possible basketball conference. Lets just stop pretending.

I said it before, I will say it again...
1. I'm not a C-USA guy.
2. You're absolutely right that if it was "Best Seven" than North Texas is invited (and Charlotte wouldn't be).

3. But it's a legal/logistical reason for the seven I listed. They can't take Eight. It has to be exactly seven. If you take 8 with UNT, then you're getting sued by C-USA and six schools in an instant because you just destroyed the conference. If you take the Best Seven, then you're leaving for the "Best Seven" reasons, and not "geography reasons."

They need the GEOGRAPHY EXCUSE as the jumping off point to build a better league so they're not getting sued by C-USA. People have been saying "C-USA East splits" but they can reasonably explain that FAU/FIU are much further distance from most the East schools than UAB is... it makes GEOGRAPHIC SENSE for Marshall, Old Dominion, Charlotte, Western Kentucky, Middle Tennessee and UAB to leave C-USA together.

And they need a seventh. Southern Miss is technically the shortest "as the crow flies" distance, but it's just slightly shorter than La Tech; and those numbers are close enough that they can make that call on football/basketball prowess. Taking North Texas as the seventh kinda kills their "Texas is too far" excuse.


And, BTW, this would probably be in the best interest of North Texas as well, because once that conference exists, avoids lawsuits, and C-USA stabilizes -- I'd imagine C-USA would immediately invite New Mexico State (travel partner with UTEP, football is currently independent) -- How long before UNT asks the New League to be considered for membership? And you cite all the reasons UNT would be accepted. Of course UNT would end up in the New League. It just can't be as a founding member.

Why would I want North Texas in that conference? I have no interest in seeing UNT relegated to a small regional east coast conference. I want UNT playing the best programs we can schedule. The cost doesn't matter. The travel doesn't matter. No one can elevate their program by isolating their athletics into cheap regional conferences. That is a formula for irrelevance. No wonder the once respected Marshall program has regressed over the past 20 years.

(08-14-2021 07:56 AM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 04:04 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(08-11-2021 10:49 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  This kind of comical. You guys don't want to split so you can build a better basketball conference..... You just want a cheaper regional conference.

If you were really interested in acquiring the best basketball options in this proposed split, UNT would be one of the program you would target.

I'm not claiming UNT is the best program in C-USA, but we are certainly among the best currently. So, you guys are not interested in building the strongest possible basketball conference. Lets just stop pretending.

I said it before, I will say it again...
1. I'm not a C-USA guy.
2. You're absolutely right that if it was "Best Seven" than North Texas is invited (and Charlotte wouldn't be).

3. But it's a legal/logistical reason for the seven I listed. They can't take Eight. It has to be exactly seven. If you take 8 with UNT, then you're getting sued by C-USA and six schools in an instant because you just destroyed the conference. If you take the Best Seven, then you're leaving for the "Best Seven" reasons, and not "geography reasons."

They need the GEOGRAPHY EXCUSE as the jumping off point to build a better league so they're not getting sued by C-USA. People have been saying "C-USA East splits" but they can reasonably explain that FAU/FIU are much further distance from most the East schools than UAB is... it makes GEOGRAPHIC SENSE for Marshall, Old Dominion, Charlotte, Western Kentucky, Middle Tennessee and UAB to leave C-USA together.

And they need a seventh. Southern Miss is technically the shortest "as the crow flies" distance, but it's just slightly shorter than La Tech; and those numbers are close enough that they can make that call on football/basketball prowess. Taking North Texas as the seventh kinda kills their "Texas is too far" excuse.


And, BTW, this would probably be in the best interest of North Texas as well, because once that conference exists, avoids lawsuits, and C-USA stabilizes -- I'd imagine C-USA would immediately invite New Mexico State (travel partner with UTEP, football is currently independent) -- How long before UNT asks the New League to be considered for membership? And you cite all the reasons UNT would be accepted. Of course UNT would end up in the New League. It just can't be as a founding member.

Why would I want North Texas in that conference? I have no interest in seeing UNT relegated to a small regional east coast conference. I want UNT playing the best programs we can schedule. The cost doesn't matter. The travel doesn't matter. No one can elevate their program by isolating their athletics into cheap regional conferences. That is a formula for irrelevance. No wonder the once respected Marshall program has regressed over the past 20 years.

Subjective preferences passed off as objective facts.

You’re nothing if not consistent, Joe.

(08-14-2021 07:56 AM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 04:04 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(08-11-2021 10:49 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  This kind of comical. You guys don't want to split so you can build a better basketball conference..... You just want a cheaper regional conference.

If you were really interested in acquiring the best basketball options in this proposed split, UNT would be one of the program you would target.

I'm not claiming UNT is the best program in C-USA, but we are certainly among the best currently. So, you guys are not interested in building the strongest possible basketball conference. Lets just stop pretending.

I said it before, I will say it again...
1. I'm not a C-USA guy.
2. You're absolutely right that if it was "Best Seven" than North Texas is invited (and Charlotte wouldn't be).

3. But it's a legal/logistical reason for the seven I listed. They can't take Eight. It has to be exactly seven. If you take 8 with UNT, then you're getting sued by C-USA and six schools in an instant because you just destroyed the conference. If you take the Best Seven, then you're leaving for the "Best Seven" reasons, and not "geography reasons."

They need the GEOGRAPHY EXCUSE as the jumping off point to build a better league so they're not getting sued by C-USA. People have been saying "C-USA East splits" but they can reasonably explain that FAU/FIU are much further distance from most the East schools than UAB is... it makes GEOGRAPHIC SENSE for Marshall, Old Dominion, Charlotte, Western Kentucky, Middle Tennessee and UAB to leave C-USA together.

And they need a seventh. Southern Miss is technically the shortest "as the crow flies" distance, but it's just slightly shorter than La Tech; and those numbers are close enough that they can make that call on football/basketball prowess. Taking North Texas as the seventh kinda kills their "Texas is too far" excuse.


And, BTW, this would probably be in the best interest of North Texas as well, because once that conference exists, avoids lawsuits, and C-USA stabilizes -- I'd imagine C-USA would immediately invite New Mexico State (travel partner with UTEP, football is currently independent) -- How long before UNT asks the New League to be considered for membership? And you cite all the reasons UNT would be accepted. Of course UNT would end up in the New League. It just can't be as a founding member.

Why would I want North Texas in that conference? I have no interest in seeing UNT relegated to a small regional east coast conference. I want UNT playing the best programs we can schedule. The cost doesn't matter. The travel doesn't matter. No one can elevate their program by isolating their athletics into cheap regional conferences. That is a formula for irrelevance. No wonder the once respected Marshall program has regressed over the past 20 years.

Spoken like a guy who doesn't have a president and board of trustees to submit and budget to for review and approval. Real world blank checks rarely exist.

As to Marshall's "regression"

A quick look at the record book tells me Marshall won 5 conference titles and six divisional titles in the cheap regional MAC and didn't win any of its three divisional titles nor a conference title in CUSA until after the AAC gutted the league and it was expanded and brought in some schools that had either never played football or were in FCS when invited. Wasn't until CUSA began looking like the MAC on the field that Marshall started winning banners again.

(08-13-2021 08:07 PM)LostInSpace Wrote:  I didn’t think the A10 would end up one-bid either. I thought they might drop below 3.25 bids which they averaged during the Temple / Xavier years. I’m thinking the A10 is probably a 2.75 bid conference at this point, though I might be proven wrong.

We’re not likely to find out what that group could do as I’m not confident this conference ever comes into being. I’m less confident than you are that group is capable of sustaining a good OOC record. No big budgets in that group like Dayton, VCU and SLU have. Money gets you less coaching turnover, buy games and more neutral site games against power conference teams. Winning in sports is hugely correlated with spending and that theoretical conference is all one bid (aka Juan Bid from the old A10 board) budgets.

A-10 is still averaging over 3. It helps that in year one after those schools left, they got six bids. Since 2016, they've been constantly disrespected and missing bids they deserve or having deserving teams in the First Four. The NET was designed to screw over non-P5 teams.

Maintaining a good OOC record won't be difficult, that's who these programs have been for 10 years, including as members of C-USA.

I could do a boring math post, but the point is very similar to the C-USA schedule model change to "play everyone once, then the top 5 teams play each other again" they went to. Why'd they do it? Because playing the top have more often gives you more quality games and improves your computer numbers. They'd be doing the same thing, only playing 6 of the top 7 twice, and 6 of the bottom 7 "not at all." Thus hurting their computer numbers less.


Take a look at those seven programs and compare their regular season records over a 10-year span to the A-10. They're pretty close to the "Bulk of the A-10" teams who bounce back and forth between 24-8 and 13-19 (UMass, URI, Saint Joe's, Saint Louis, GW, and Richmond). They don't have a UD/VCU program, but they don't have multiple teams like Fordham and LaSalle, either. They're basically the middle of the A-10. And as losing Xavier and Temple and replacing them with Davidson and Mason showed, the middle of the A-10 is almost always a 2 bid league.

(08-14-2021 07:56 AM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  Why would I want North Texas in that conference? I have no interest in seeing UNT relegated to a small regional east coast conference. I want UNT playing the best programs we can schedule. The cost doesn't matter. The travel doesn't matter. No one can elevate their program by isolating their athletics into cheap regional conferences. That is a formula for irrelevance. No wonder the once respected Marshall program has regressed over the past 20 years.

1. Literally EVERY SCHOOL THAT IS GOOD built themselves in a small regional conference that was cheap and isolated. That's why conferences started.

2. Someone who did elevate their program by isolating athletics into a cheap regional conference in the modern era: Gonzaga. What do you think the WCC is?

3. Best programs you can schedule? These are literally the teams in your conference NOW.

4. Formula for irrelevance? Again, this is your current conference! If this new conference would be irrelevant without 6 of the worst 7 programs from C-USA, what the hell are you WITH the bottom of the league?

5. The once respected Marshall program has regressed over 20 years? (Ignoring whether or not that's actually true) They joined C-USA 16 years ago! So if you feel were respected, that occurred in the MAC! Which is what? A cheap regional conference! And they've fallen off the map by BEING IN C-USA. Which is all the more reason to split in half (And invite UNT after the dust settles).

6. In all seriousness, your post makes me wonder if talking about half of C-USA leaving North Texas behind rubbed up against an abandonment issue nerve.

#6 seems to be the case... I’m not sure why they are so clingy but they are.

(08-14-2021 04:10 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  #6 seems to be the case... I’m not sure why they are so clingy but they are.

Unlike Marshall who now plays with almost no one who was in CUSA when they joined, they get to play two UT system schools and Rice and all is good.

(08-14-2021 03:08 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(08-13-2021 08:07 PM)LostInSpace Wrote:  I didn’t think the A10 would end up one-bid either. I thought they might drop below 3.25 bids which they averaged during the Temple / Xavier years. I’m thinking the A10 is probably a 2.75 bid conference at this point, though I might be proven wrong.

We’re not likely to find out what that group could do as I’m not confident this conference ever comes into being. I’m less confident than you are that group is capable of sustaining a good OOC record. No big budgets in that group like Dayton, VCU and SLU have. Money gets you less coaching turnover, buy games and more neutral site games against power conference teams. Winning in sports is hugely correlated with spending and that theoretical conference is all one bid (aka Juan Bid from the old A10 board) budgets.

A-10 is still averaging over 3. It helps that in year one after those schools left, they got six bids. Since 2016, they've been constantly disrespected and missing bids they deserve or having deserving teams in the First Four. The NET was designed to screw over non-P5 teams.

Maintaining a good OOC record won't be difficult, that's who these programs have been for 10 years, including as members of C-USA.

I could do a boring math post, but the point is very similar to the C-USA schedule model change to "play everyone once, then the top 5 teams play each other again" they went to. Why'd they do it? Because playing the top have more often gives you more quality games and improves your computer numbers. They'd be doing the same thing, only playing 6 of the top 7 twice, and 6 of the bottom 7 "not at all." Thus hurting their computer numbers less.


Take a look at those seven programs and compare their regular season records over a 10-year span to the A-10. They're pretty close to the "Bulk of the A-10" teams who bounce back and forth between 24-8 and 13-19 (UMass, URI, Saint Joe's, Saint Louis, GW, and Richmond). They don't have a UD/VCU program, but they don't have multiple teams like Fordham and LaSalle, either. They're basically the middle of the A-10. And as losing Xavier and Temple and replacing them with Davidson and Mason showed, the middle of the A-10 is almost always a 2 bid league.

Yeah it bears out RPI-wise, too.