DU
Elon
HU
JMU
NU
TU
UNCW
WM
 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    20 minutes North of the Tub
    Posts
    4,077

    Default Re: Instead of looking for new CAA members, why not think bigger?

    I think just the opposite is more likely to happen - teams dropping from FBS.

    2014 will start the new era of BCS postseason - most likely a 4-team playoff.

    Additionally, they're going to raise the win total needed for bowl game participation from 6 to 7 wins - which means just as many, 6 to 7 current bowl games will disappear as there won't be enough teams with winning records to fill them all.
    elaware Football - another year in the crapper

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,774

    Default Re: Instead of looking for new CAA members, why not think bigger?

    Quote Originally Posted by towsonx View Post
    Yes, I am aware the two conferences were talking and in the process and wouldn’t have posted anything, but read a few things that made me wonder how permanent the arrangement was going to be?

    I.E., an ESPN story seems to imply that it’s not a true merger, but an “association” of the conferences? This leads me to believe that the two conferences are maintaining themselves as separate entities and would be a conference by name only.

    It seems that they are leaving open the option to split at a later date? I could be wrong……

    With all the schools that bolted they need some stability.

    http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...new-conference

    Conference USA was formed by the merger of two conferences (Metro Conference and Great Midwest Conference,) that did not sponsor football.

    This made me wonder if it there is some NCAA bylaw or other rule that would allow that to still happen? Or was there was some voting process that allowed the conference to be created?. …

    Either way, there seems to be room for another conference which can establish it’s self as some regional entity.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conference_USA

    It's legal issues and financial interests that have left the two parties working with lawyers together, to achieve the best arrangement.

    To keep it simple:

    If the two conferences have a full merger at 16 schools (both expected to expand by 2-4 members for a total of 16 to 24), they will forfeit 1 of their NCAA tournament bids. So instead of 1 bid split between 8-12 schools each, for a total of 2, there would be 1 bid split between 16-24 schools.

    That's a lot of money to throw away.

    That said, it the football TV revenue were worthwhile, enough to compensate that loss, then a merger would happen.

    There are also the specifics of the scheduling for a full merger. If they are at 8-10 schools, they can have the division winners (CUSA division and MWC division) play in a conference championship game. But that would REQUIRE per NCAA rules, that each team in the division play every other team in the division. so if it's a 20 team conference, 10/10 split, then it means a 9 game conference schedule where you play all 9 division members.

    They cannot merge and expand to 24 and have separate divisions (4 total) since there is only room for 1 extra game (unless all schools scheduled 1 less game that allowed each year, threw out that revenue, just so that they can have a "semi final" game and a championship.


    But as an alliance, they bypass any NCAA issues:
    * as an alliance, they get 2 NCAA hoops bids (and other non-football sports bids)
    * They can expand to 12/12 if they wish, have 2 divisions each and have a "championship game" between CUSA East division vs CUSA West, MWC Mountain Division vs MWC West division
    * winners of these two games would play in a Bowl game featuring both winners, similar to the old Liberty Bowl that had the CUSA #1 vs MWC #1, a rare bowl of conference winners.

    Those cover all the NCAA issues at hand....and the kicker...

    The "alliance" would be able to negotiate their own TV contract as a 24 school entity, because that is a business decision that falls outside of the NCAA jurisdiction.

    So as an alliance (16-24 schools), it means 2 conferences within the NCAA guidelines by every way possible. But from a business perspective, the entity is free to exist as a single negotiating unit. They are able to use the coast-to-coast model to ensure they maximize their revenue potential by getting into as many markets as possible. It's this reason, and the TV network craving of live sports content, that is why the top candidates for CUSA/MWC are:

    FIU (Miami market), North Texas (replace lost Dallas market), Utah St. (SLC market), SJSU (Bay area market), UTSA (San Antonio market), and even Charlotte for it's market. After that, the candidates are Appalachian St. (more as an alternative to Charlotte), LA Tech and NMSU. It's why most expect the final number to be 20 schools with MWC picking up Utah St. and SJSU for their side of the merger or alliance and CUSA to lock up FIU and North Texas. Things get interesting with UTSA, which is desirable, but would likely be added to CUSA with UTEP then moving to the MWC side instead of SJSU.


    Regardless of the final path chosen, the two conferences are joining up and they are doing so for a long term TV contract for football.

    If CUSA had even the slightest interest in adding any CAA schools, and that includes my own UMass program headed to the MAC, then they would have explored that as an option, instead of actually proposing the merger with the MWC.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,774

    Default Re: Instead of looking for new CAA members, why not think bigger?

    Quote Originally Posted by towsonx View Post
    Just when it seemed that things would settle down with teams moving between conferences, the dust may not settle for a while……..

    The prospect of a Mountain West-Conference USA superconference is now on hold
    http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-...200118048.html







    There’s no CAA schools on the radar yet, but it’s yet to be seen how many schools will abandon their conference to boost either of these conferences.



    So the MWC – USA conference game plan is to invite all WAC members with football to join. That and take some Sunbelt teams.

    SO; New Game Plan for the CAA; Join the WAC ASAP.
    ……………….then change the name.

    New WAC *
    Delaware
    Maine
    UNH
    W & M
    ODU
    Richmond
    JMU
    Towson

    Expanded (future) WAC/Colonial *
    North
    Maine
    UNH
    Delaware
    Army
    UMASS
    Youngstown State
    Univ of Buffalo

    South
    W & M
    ODU
    Richmond
    JMU
    Towson
    UNCC
    App State/Coastal Carolina


    *Villanova to Big East?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western...tic_Conference
    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...-usamwc-league


    Buddy, love you interest in the topic. But you just posted a 3 week old article. You should know that there has been a plethora of public statements released by both commissioners as well as school presidents to debunk these articles. Do you think that Thompson & Banowsky flew together to SJSU to scout it out because they just wanted to grab some garlic fries? Or they went to Utah St. to have a spa weekend? Or that they are visiting UTSA now to find Pee-Wee's bike at the Alamo?

    Click my sig and visit the CUSA/MWC section for all the most up to date articles on the alliance/merger. They are updated daily.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,774

    Default Re: Instead of looking for new CAA members, why not think bigger?

    Quote Originally Posted by towsonx View Post
    Well, sorry you got the impression I think CAA teams are ready for FBS football. I do agree that the CAA is not ready for prime-time.


    My point is that some FBS conferences seem to be in a lot of trouble and I think we need to explore a move as a group to the FBS level before that opportunity is gone.

    The CAA has a good synergy and I think that over time could become a more formidable conference than some current FBS conferences.



    To use a Real Estate analogy;
    The WAC is like a large mansion located in an affluent neighborhood surrounded by a country club. But the mansion is falling apart, outdated and in need of a full renovation. And the FCS is like the nice neighborhood just outside of the country club neighborhood.

    So the CAA is a newly-wed couple who has the opportunity to get this mansion at a rock-bottom price. Or they can stay in their neighborhood, and maybe build a deck or addition.

    While the neighbors may laugh at the beat up corolla sitting in the driveway, the Mansion does offer a big upside after it’s restored. Staying in the current neighborhood makes a lot of sense and the couple is friends with many of the neighbors, but they know they will end up in that mansion eventually…….

    Anyway, it’s late in the day and I’m rambling.……..

    I would just like to see the CAA; GO FOR IT.

    Yes, CAA teams would get beat up for a few years, and other FBS conferences would see us as the Pioneer Conference of FBS.

    But we would improve. We can still schedule teams from the Big South, Southern etc., that and teams from the Sunbelt, CUSA, MAC, etc. or others like Duke, Vanderbilt and New Mexico.

    With owners that know what they are doing, the Mansion will be worth a lot some day.

    Indeed. But the only way that happens?

    WAC needs to invite the FEW FBS capable schools that exist and create an "Eastern" division...however there would not be enough schools for 2 divisions since it's not like a MAC or Sun Belt school would downgrade to this mess. This mess would be the lone opportunity for a "group upgrade", as you mentioned.

    EAST: Delaware, JMU, ODU, Charlotte, Appalachian St., Georgia Southern, *Texas St, *NMSU, *SJSU, *Idaho
    Likely gone: LA Tech, UTSA, Utah St
    Long Shots: Lamar & SHSU (considering FBS upgrade as well), North Dakota (feels they can do it)
    Not moving to this: UMass (unless MAC kicks them out after 2 years since Temple is gone), GA St (now in SB)...and any SB, MAC, CUSA/MWC of BCS level school. And don't expect Big Sky schools either...Montana passed on a WAC that had more stability, a WAC that is about to lose some or most of it's schools.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,774

    Default Re: Instead of looking for new CAA members, why not think bigger?

    Quote Originally Posted by mainejeff2 View Post
    I don't either. I get the economics of it (there is a pot 'o gold at the end of the road......SOMETIMES). But for most........it's a pipe dream. UMass made a wise decision despite being the unfortunate victim of this conference upheaval. I honestly think that ODU is the only other CAA football program where it makes absolute sense to move up IF they can find the appropriate conference situation.

    I love what ODU has done so far, it's been fun to watch. But in addition to ODU, sorry Jeff, I still feel that JMU and Delaware are models of excellence and beyond capable. I know many fans at UD seem attached to the FCS subdivision, and I can respect that. But the big fish in a small pond ideology is one I dont' really support. I don't see the need to cling to a lower level of competition just to you can waive a tiny banner that so few in the world see that says "We have a playoff". It's like arguing that Northeastern should have stayed in the America East, since it's easier for them to win that conference. I mean, every AE school knows they have no shot at winning the national championship in basketball every year. But they moved to the CAA because it was step up for them. Still, despite the VCU and GMU runs in previous years, it's not like logical CAA fans here are saying that their school, the CAA winner, will win the national championship. But you still love your programs and support them. Same with MWC schools, same with CUSA schools, same with other FBS schools. They upgraded to COMPETE at the highest level, to compete against the best. And if the cards dealt work out in a given year, schools from the WAC, MWC and CUSA have all made it to the BCS, to showcase what they can do. They earned it by competing at that high level and succeeding, just like GMU and VCU did in basketball. And at some point, something will happen, and a school from a lesser conference will find themselves in the title game. Face it: non-BCS schools Boise St., TCU, even Hawaii, Tulane and Utah have all come as close as any non-BCS program has in winning a basketball title (Memphis and Butler being the closest).

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,774

    Default Re: Instead of looking for new CAA members, why not think bigger?

    Quote Originally Posted by bluehenbillk View Post
    I think just the opposite is more likely to happen - teams dropping from FBS.

    2014 will start the new era of BCS postseason - most likely a 4-team playoff.

    Additionally, they're going to raise the win total needed for bowl game participation from 6 to 7 wins - which means just as many, 6 to 7 current bowl games will disappear as there won't be enough teams with winning records to fill them all.
    I find it highly unlikely that there is an type of large downgrade. I only see a single school, 1 in all of FBS, that is a candidate: Idaho. And for them, I think they have too much pride to do so. For the rest, there is actually a place of stability on the horizon.

    You have the top 5 BCS conferences at 14, 12 or 10 members. You have the Big East that will grow again in the next few years to 14 football schools. You have the Sun Belt just adding a school and looking at adding 2 more even if they don't lose 2 to CUSA/MWC...in which case they might expand by 4 with 2 replacements (Charlotte, UTSA, LA Tech, App St., NMSU all on the radar). And for CUSA/MWC, they are looking to grow from 16 to 18 to 24 schools. And these conferences are doing this to build stability, to make more sound regional divisions to cut back on costs. Meanwhile, you have lower level conferences like the Big sky and even the CAA that increased their travel costs (GA St, Northeastern)...with neither school doing anything tangible to increase conference revenue (all hail ODU, VCU and GMU...those 3 have gone above and beyond as the family providers...Towson, NU and others should be preparing a roast and a martini for these guys when they come home from work).

    But yeah, I could see Idaho is a tough spot based on their geography. If/when the WAC folds, they'd have to give up a lot to the Sun Belt to get a FB only invite, like 50% share in FB revenue). But I think Idaho remains FBS out of spite almost.

    Texas St. could be in a tough spot too is UTSA, LA Tech, etc, get brought into CUSA/MWC.

    And Umass is the last FBS school that might be screwed. But the good news, is that the MAC invite means UMass can remain an FBS indy if they want, if the MAC (worst case scenario) opts to remove UMass after 2 years, per the agreement stipulations regarding being tied to Temple.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Homeless
    Posts
    3,137

    Default Re: Instead of looking for new CAA members, why not think bigger?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quinn View Post
    It's legal issues and financial interests that have left the two parties working with lawyers together, to achieve the best arrangement.

    To keep it simple:

    If the two conferences have a full merger at 16 schools (both expected to expand by 2-4 members for a total of 16 to 24), they will forfeit 1 of their NCAA tournament bids. So instead of 1 bid split between 8-12 schools each, for a total of 2, there would be 1 bid split between 16-24 schools.

    That's a lot of money to throw away.

    That said, it the football TV revenue were worthwhile, enough to compensate that loss, then a merger would happen.

    There are also the specifics of the scheduling for a full merger. If they are at 8-10 schools, they can have the division winners (CUSA division and MWC division) play in a conference championship game. But that would REQUIRE per NCAA rules, that each team in the division play every other team in the division. so if it's a 20 team conference, 10/10 split, then it means a 9 game conference schedule where you play all 9 division members.

    They cannot merge and expand to 24 and have separate divisions (4 total) since there is only room for 1 extra game (unless all schools scheduled 1 less game that allowed each year, threw out that revenue, just so that they can have a "semi final" game and a championship.

    But as an alliance, they bypass any NCAA issues:
    * as an alliance, they get 2 NCAA hoops bids (and other non-football sports bids)
    * They can expand to 12/12 if they wish, have 2 divisions each and have a "championship game" between CUSA East division vs CUSA West, MWC Mountain Division vs MWC West division
    * winners of these two games would play in a Bowl game featuring both winners, similar to the old Liberty Bowl that had the CUSA #1 vs MWC #1, a rare bowl of conference winners.

    Those cover all the NCAA issues at hand....and the kicker...

    The "alliance" would be able to negotiate their own TV contract as a 24 school entity, because that is a business decision that falls outside of the NCAA jurisdiction.

    So as an alliance (16-24 schools), it means 2 conferences within the NCAA guidelines by every way possible. But from a business perspective, the entity is free to exist as a single negotiating unit. They are able to use the coast-to-coast model to ensure they maximize their revenue potential by getting into as many markets as possible. It's this reason, and the TV network craving of live sports content, that is why the top candidates for CUSA/MWC are:

    FIU (Miami market), North Texas (replace lost Dallas market), Utah St. (SLC market), SJSU (Bay area market), UTSA (San Antonio market), and even Charlotte for it's market. After that, the candidates are Appalachian St. (more as an alternative to Charlotte), LA Tech and NMSU. It's why most expect the final number to be 20 schools with MWC picking up Utah St. and SJSU for their side of the merger or alliance and CUSA to lock up FIU and North Texas. Things get interesting with UTSA, which is desirable, but would likely be added to CUSA with UTEP then moving to the MWC side instead of SJSU.

    Regardless of the final path chosen, the two conferences are joining up and they are doing so for a long term TV contract for football.

    If CUSA had even the slightest interest in adding any CAA schools, and that includes my own UMass program headed to the MAC, then they would have explored that as an option, instead of actually proposing the merger with the MWC.
    Interesting stuff. Will wait and see how this all plays out. Instead of keeping up on the latest development s over the last 24 hours, I prefer to speculate or just wait until the dust settles to see who’s left standing. Seeing how teams like TCU backed out of the Big East, I know agreements can also be un-done.

    And I know the C-USA/MWC is not looking at the CAA for expansion. At least for now. Why check out JV players when there’s some varsity players available?

    I’m not sure why the WAC and MWC didn't try to merge. The geographic regions are similar and seems like they would make a better fit. WAC teams are being targeted by this C-USAMWC mega conference anyway.

    Maybe the WAC will join the Alliance? It would make sense. So many moving parts...... and I'm really not convinced an alliance will work well because one has to wonder why has it not been tried before? ACC & Big East, SEC and Big 12? etc.,

    I thought Conf USA was created to do something similar, but that conf has a revolving door....

    For now making a move to have CAA football occupy the WAC would be my call. CAA teams belong in the FBS just as much as Pioneer Conf teams belong in the FCS. For CAA schools wanting to eventually play FBS football though, making a play for a FBS conference on “Death Row” is a good means to an end.

    And what’s up with the Big East?*

    The new Big East looks like a 3 headed monster to me……A collection of far flung schools that appear to be very different in size, goals and ??. Though a new $10 million exit fee will make football members think twice……..


    As far as the $10 million exit fee goes though, I wonder if there would be enough new teams to reverse the fee?

    Future Big East Football
    All over div
    UConn
    Navy
    San Diego State
    Boise State
    Temple
    Rutgers

    South Central Div
    Houston
    SMU
    UCF
    Memphis*
    South Florida
    Louisville
    Cincinnati
    =======================================

    Future Big East Basketball
    UConn
    Georgetown
    Providence
    St Johns
    Villanova
    Rutgers
    Temple
    Cincinnati
    DePaul
    Louisville
    Marquette
    South Florida
    Houston
    SMU
    UCF
    Memphis

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_East_Conference
    Fight on

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Homeless
    Posts
    3,137

    Default Re: Instead of looking for new CAA members, why not think bigger?

    Quote Originally Posted by mainejeff2 View Post
    I don't either. I get the economics of it (there is a pot 'o gold at the end of the road......SOMETIMES). But for most........it's a pipe dream. UMass made a wise decision despite being the unfortunate victim of this conference upheaval. I honestly think that ODU is the only other CAA football program where it makes absolute sense to move up IF they can find the appropriate conference situation.
    It would be nice if there was a different system of moving the up in a conference. I don't think many would care if the FBS and FCS football was determined by level of play as opposed to shopping around for a good deal.

    There are many schools that shouldn’t be playing FBS football but are.

    It would be nice if there was a system where criteria had to be met and a conference could vote to move up once it had met that criteria.

    FBS Conferences like the Sunbelt may be demoted if there were such a system in place. Or a FCS conference like the Pioneer Conference may have been moved back to Div II?

    Just a thought. Back in my College Rugby days we had a way to that teams could move up to a better conference or be sent down to the minors.

    It was called a “Challenge Match”.

    A challenge match was one were a lower level team challenged a team from a higher group and the winner would move up into the higher conference while the loser was demoted.

    Ie., it’d be like JMU football challenging Duke football, winning and then moving up to the ACC.

    It may not be a good way to go if done by individual teams challenging another individual team but I would love to be able to have the top 4-5 teams in a FCS conf challenge the top 4-5 teams of a FBS Conference; Mono E Mono.

    The CAA could challenge conferences like the Sunbelt? MAC? or WAC?

    If I were to set up a system, I'd set one where a lower conference would select 4-5 teams, need to win all games and could pick the match-ups from the teams the FBS conference sent out to defend their honor.

    Seems fair, though I know in reality, FBS teams would never go for it.

    Anyway, just a thought…….
    Fight on

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,774

    Default Re: Instead of looking for new CAA members, why not think bigger?

    Quote Originally Posted by towsonx View Post
    Interesting stuff. Will wait and see how this all plays out. Instead of keeping up on the latest development s over the last 24 hours, I prefer to speculate or just wait until the dust settles to see who’s left standing. Seeing how teams like TCU backed out of the Big East, I know agreements can also be un-done.

    And I know the C-USA/MWC is not looking at the CAA for expansion. At least for now. Why check out JV players when there’s some varsity players available?

    I’m not sure why the WAC and MWC didn't try to merge. The geographic regions are similar and seems like they would make a better fit. WAC teams are being targeted by this C-USAMWC mega conference anyway.

    Maybe the WAC will join the Alliance? It would make sense. So many moving parts...... and I'm really not convinced an alliance will work well because one has to wonder why has it not been tried before? ACC & Big East, SEC and Big 12? etc.,

    I thought Conf USA was created to do something similar, but that conf has a revolving door....

    For now making a move to have CAA football occupy the WAC would be my call. CAA teams belong in the FBS just as much as Pioneer Conf teams belong in the FCS. For CAA schools wanting to eventually play FBS football though, making a play for a FBS conference on “Death Row” is a good means to an end.

    And what’s up with the Big East?*

    The new Big East looks like a 3 headed monster to me……A collection of far flung schools that appear to be very different in size, goals and ??. Though a new $10 million exit fee will make football members think twice……..


    As far as the $10 million exit fee goes though, I wonder if there would be enough new teams to reverse the fee?

    Future Big East Football
    All over div
    UConn
    Navy
    San Diego State
    Boise State
    Temple
    Rutgers

    South Central Div
    Houston
    SMU
    UCF
    Memphis*
    South Florida
    Louisville
    Cincinnati
    =======================================

    Future Big East Basketball
    UConn
    Georgetown
    Providence
    St Johns
    Villanova
    Rutgers
    Temple
    Cincinnati
    DePaul
    Louisville
    Marquette
    South Florida
    Houston
    SMU
    UCF
    Memphis

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_East_Conference
    The reason the MWC doesn't want to merge with the WAC is exactly why you posted that you think they should. There is nothing to gain for the MWC, which despite it's own losses, is clearly in the position of power over the WAC. The MWC can only find POTENTIAL gains from the WAC in Utah St. (to replace the long lost Utah market, which used to be the top in the MWC) and SJSU (for Bay Area TV access that Fresno St. won't deliver). An argument can be made that UTSA could help, but they'd be a stretch located in Texas and being an FBS newcomer. TCU was an exception.

    In merging with CUSA, they get coast to coast TV access. It really is that simple. That's what this entire play is all about.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Homeless
    Posts
    3,137

    Default Re: Instead of looking for new CAA members, why not think bigger?

    Report: C-USA, MWC no longer merging
    http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports...onger-merging/
    April 17, 2012, 3:50 PM EDT
    On second thought, never mind?

    Following months of discussions and alterations in plans to someway, somehow, get Conference USA and the Mountain West to either merge or dissolve and reform as one, it appears the two conferences will, in fact, stay separate — for now, anyway.

    CBS Sports’ Brett McMurphy reports, citing industry sources, that a merger between the two leagues “probably will not happen“, but that each side is still working to figure out a way to share television, marketing and scheduling resources with the other.

    “There is not much talk about a formal merger of the conferences into one conference entity in the near term, but that is still a future consideration,” one source told McMurphy.

    The two conferences have been in discussions about how to modify their leagues since last year in the wake of more conference reshuffling and gerrymandering. If the conferences separately dissolved and reformed into one conference, as was the original plan, they could nullify any current TV deals and restructure media rights to maximize revenue.
    It's too bad there can't be a conference that sponsored FBS and FCS football. That and Div 1 LAX and Div 1 basketball.

    That's what we need.
    Fight on

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Latest CAAZone.com News


From our Sponsors: