Article Proposing SBC, CUSA Merger (2024)

Post: #21

The notion of small tight regional conferences is a horrible one.

It won't take long before someone starts blaming their conference being too weak (because of UNT, the F_U's, ULM, Texas State, Georgia State, or whatever) and thus keeping them from the access bowl.

And it won't take long for folks complaining about the media deal and how they bring the Lion's share of the eyeballs, yet only getting 1/12th (or 1/10th) of the revenue.

Not to mention, several schools have a belief they are not peer institutions with their local brethren, which was addressed by the ego's thing.

Post: #22

(11-29-2016 08:04 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote:

(11-29-2016 07:54 PM)ericsaid Wrote: A socialist mindset would approve of the idea that an independent entity would release the schools that keep them competitive to another conference with no compensation. The eastern portion of the C-USA and Sun Belt would be far more competitive than the western portion of both conferences, which makes this a losing proposition for each conference. I hate to make this political but in a sense, this is the definition of socialism gaining normalcy in US society (as it has been happening for the last 60 years).

http://imgur.com/a/rMJvk

There is a tie in between the line of thinking where forced regionalization (not due to economic pressures but social) would fall in place with what I mentioned.

Regardless, it isn't going to happen and while it would be good for some schools, some would really suffer.

Post: #23

Post: #24

Post: #25

(11-29-2016 08:06 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote: The notion of small tight regional conferences is a horrible one.

It won't take long before someone starts blaming their conference being too weak (because of UNT, the F_U's, ULM, Texas State, Georgia State, or whatever) and thus keeping them from the access bowl.

And it won't take long for folks complaining about the media deal and how they bring the Lion's share of the eyeballs, yet only getting 1/12th (or 1/10th) of the revenue.

Not to mention, several schools have a belief they are not peer institutions with their local brethren, which was addressed by the ego's thing.

It may be as you put it, a horrible notion. But so is playing games in empty stadiums because a University Fan Base could give a Rat's Azzzzz about the school from 1,500 miles away that said University happens to share a conference with.

Everyone on this board complains about attendance issues. A lot of those issues have to do with playing conference mates from across the country whom the home team could care less about, coupled with the fact that most mid-major fan bases aren't traveling 1,500 miles to see a game. Not to mention that the current set up limits, rather than enhances rivalries. We're a great example, what 3 years now in the Belt, and really no conference rival to speak of . . .

Mid-Majors simply don't have the resources to "Act" like small versions of the P5. A reorganization along regional lines just makes sense . . . For fans, attendance, rivalries, and limited University resources.

Do it already . . .

Post: #26

(11-29-2016 07:54 PM)ericsaid Wrote: A socialist mindset would approve of the idea that an independent entity would release the schools that keep them competitive to another conference with no compensation. The eastern portion of the C-USA and Sun Belt would be far more competitive than the western portion of both conferences, which makes this a losing proposition for each conference. I hate to make this political but in a sense, this is the definition of socialism gaining normalcy in US society (as it has been happening for the last 60 years).

Socialist????

We are talking pure capitalism here.
If a company generates $10 million in revenue on expenses of $9 million and can reduce expenses to $7 million but it results in revenue falling to $9 million most owners will gleefully cut a few employees and shutter the poor producing division to increase profit 100%.

And where do you get the idea there would be no compensation???

If a group up and leaves they have to compensate their departure with an exit fee. If the group chooses to stay but kick someone out the one kicked out is entitled to 1/xth of the conference assets (where x equals the number of members in the conference) for losing their equity membership.

Nothing remotely socialist about that.

Post: #27

Post: #28

(11-29-2016 08:06 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote: The notion of small tight regional conferences is a horrible one.

It won't take long before someone starts blaming their conference being too weak (because of UNT, the F_U's, ULM, Texas State, Georgia State, or whatever) and thus keeping them from the access bowl.

And it won't take long for folks complaining about the media deal and how they bring the Lion's share of the eyeballs, yet only getting 1/12th (or 1/10th) of the revenue.

Not to mention, several schools have a belief they are not peer institutions with their local brethren, which was addressed by the ego's thing.

I'm sure all of this will happen, but I bet these two conferences break apart and re-form anyway, because schools no longer seem capable of investing in stability to allow long-term rivalries to develop. Geography helps, but familiarity matters too (see Notre Dame/USC).

It's not my fight anymore but you guys really should just stay together and let your fanbases learn to appreciate/hate each other rather than have to figure out a whole new set of schools to be "rivals" with every couple years.

Or, keep making lateral moves within the G5 and ultimately tread water.

Post: #29

Post: #30

(11-29-2016 08:06 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote: The notion of small tight regional conferences is a horrible one.

It won't take long before someone starts blaming their conference being too weak (because of UNT, the F_U's, ULM, Texas State, Georgia State, or whatever) and thus keeping them from the access bowl.

And it won't take long for folks complaining about the media deal and how they bring the Lion's share of the eyeballs, yet only getting 1/12th (or 1/10th) of the revenue.

Not to mention, several schools have a belief they are not peer institutions with their local brethren, which was addressed by the ego's thing.

Nothing horrible about tight conferences per se.

Unless you are in the SEC, Big 10, Pac-12, or the Ivy you have an eye open looking for the chance to move to another conference. Doesn't mean you jump at any possibility but you are always assessing if you can better your lot in life.

MWC and Big XII addressed the issue of who brings in the TV dollars the same way the NCAA and later the CFA addressed it. He earns most the gold gets most the gold. Does Oklahoma State like it? No but what better options exist for them? They understand if the money splits equal that Texas can go someplace with more money. UNLV may not like Boise getting more TV money but what are UNLV's options? They get more than they would in a MWC that didn't have Boise.

Bama could demand a bigger share of the gold from SEC but Bama understands the real money is in donations, tickets, and sponsorships and it is good for them to see Ole Miss spend a lot of money on a coach, makes them more credible driving fan interest. If Bama thinks there is more money to be made on their own, Bama will leave.

Post: #31

Post: #32

ArkSt
Rice
LaTech
WKU
MTSU
TROY
SoMIss
Marshall
GaSo
AppST

Would be ridiculous. Any team that wins that conference is Top #25 at the end of the season. Make it undefeated and you're talking about access bowl.

edit: if you have to keep ULL for ArkSt rivalry then drop Rice...

(This post was last modified: 11-29-2016 09:53 PM by Yosef Himself.)

Post: #33

(11-29-2016 09:11 PM)LatahCounty Wrote:

(11-29-2016 08:06 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote: The notion of small tight regional conferences is a horrible one.

It won't take long before someone starts blaming their conference being too weak (because of UNT, the F_U's, ULM, Texas State, Georgia State, or whatever) and thus keeping them from the access bowl.

And it won't take long for folks complaining about the media deal and how they bring the Lion's share of the eyeballs, yet only getting 1/12th (or 1/10th) of the revenue.

Not to mention, several schools have a belief they are not peer institutions with their local brethren, which was addressed by the ego's thing.

I'm sure all of this will happen, but I bet these two conferences break apart and re-form anyway, because schools no longer seem capable of investing in stability to allow long-term rivalries to develop. Geography helps, but familiarity matters too (see Notre Dame/USC).

It's not my fight anymore but you guys really should just stay together and let your fanbases learn to appreciate/hate each other rather than have to figure out a whole new set of schools to be "rivals" with every couple years.

Or, keep making lateral moves within the G5 and ultimately tread water.

If AState is in a conference with App and the team in Lafayette a decade from now, it causes me no heartburn.

Good games make rivalries.

I have a friend who rarely allows any mention of Idaho pass without adding, "sumbitches hit Cleo out of bounds and ruined his knee"

That was in 1999

Proximity is a good thing but in the end it all comes down to competitive games.

Post: #34

(11-29-2016 09:32 PM)Hilltopper2K Wrote: There is someone I work with that speaks regularly with one of the CUSA ADs and this particular AD (not WKU) was very interested in a 10- team geographically-tighter conference that took some of the best teams from CUSA and the Sun Belt. While not quite the idea floated in this article I could see something like this happening. The best programs from each joining together to make a smaller, tighter conference and the rest would have to fend for themselves.

That hints at my argument all along.

There is not a lot of incentive to sit down in a hotel ballroom and haggle out a shifting of the team.

Someone is going to come up with a 10-12 team alignment that hits the right buttons in regionalism, competitiveness, and self-perception and pull the trigger and let the others sort out what to do.

Post: #35

(11-29-2016 09:52 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote: ArkSt
Rice
LaTech
WKU
MTSU
TROY
SoMIss
Marshall
GaSo
AppST

Would be ridiculous. Any team that wins that conference is Top #25 at the end of the season. Make it undefeated and you're talking about access bowl.

edit: if you have to keep ULL for ArkSt rivalry then drop Rice...

Without the edit, that is doing practically the same thing travel wise. It's not saving App much as Rice is only 150 miles less travel than TXST. It's still a spread out conference which, I believe, the author was trying to get away from for economic reasons. That's the crux of the article.

People wanting their dream conferences discussed might want to hit the realignment board.

Post: #36

(11-29-2016 07:54 PM)ericsaid Wrote: A socialist mindset would approve of the idea that an independent entity would release the schools that keep them competitive to another conference with no compensation. The eastern portion of the C-USA and Sun Belt would be far more competitive than the western portion of both conferences, which makes this a losing proposition for each conference. I hate to make this political but in a sense, this is the definition of socialism gaining normalcy in US society (as it has been happening for the last 60 years).

What you talking about Willis? Ignoring your largely incoherent political rant, when comparing all-sports, the top four teams in the Bubas Cup were in the west (based on the map in the article). The year before it was the top five. The year prior, Western Kentucky won, but the next five were in the west half.

If you just want to compare football, at the top of the standings this year are Appalachian, then four western members (three if you wish to exclude Idaho). Last year, three of the top four were in the east, but the champ was in the west. The year prior, three of the top five were west.

If you want to compare with CUSA added, I'd offer that the combo of Louisiana Tech, Southern Mississippi and Rice in all-sports offset some of the negatives when compared to the deadweight you'd see in the east. There is no real solution, but to say one would trump the other.... not buying it.

My main problem is that fact that UTA, Little Rock and ULM are out and JMU is in. UTA, despite offering 2-4 sports less than those ahead AND behind, finished fourth in the Bubas Cup last year and two points out of first the year prior. So even when UTA isn't winning championships, they are increasing the RPI of those that do. Little Rock brought the conference millions with its NCAA run last year. It's not like the non-football schools aren't carrying their own weight.

Post: #37

Post: #38

(11-29-2016 09:32 PM)Hilltopper2K Wrote: There is someone I work with that speaks regularly with one of the CUSA ADs and this particular AD (not WKU) was very interested in a 10- team geographically-tighter conference that took some of the best teams from CUSA and the Sun Belt. While not quite the idea floated in this article I could see something like this happening. The best programs from each joining together to make a smaller, tighter conference and the rest would have to fend for themselves.

THIS is how it will happen. Not necessarily a neat geographic split. There are a lot of considerations that will have a bearing on what happens next. The southeast in general needs a league of solid programs that can generate a top 25 program or two every season in football, offer regional rivals to improve gates, and yes, control non-revenue travel costs. It will happen, but it will mean some schools won't make the cut. This article touches on that. Ask Idaho and New Mexico how this is working out for them.

Post: #39

(11-29-2016 09:52 PM)Yosef Himself Wrote: ArkSt
Rice
LaTech
WKU
MTSU
TROY
SoMIss
Marshall
GaSo
AppST

Would be ridiculous. Any team that wins that conference is Top #25 at the end of the season. Make it undefeated and you're talking about access bowl.

edit: if you have to keep ULL for ArkSt rivalry then drop Rice...

Make it so! Great and competitive games make rivalries and fill stadiums, not proximity.

Post: #40

(11-29-2016 09:20 PM)arkstfan Wrote: Nothing horrible about tight conferences per se.

Unless you are in the SEC, Big 10, Pac-12, or the Ivy you have an eye open looking for the chance to move to another conference. Doesn't mean you jump at any possibility but you are always assessing if you can better your lot in life.

MWC and Big XII addressed the issue of who brings in the TV dollars the same way the NCAA and later the CFA addressed it. He earns most the gold gets most the gold. Does Oklahoma State like it? No but what better options exist for them? They understand if the money splits equal that Texas can go someplace with more money. UNLV may not like Boise getting more TV money but what are UNLV's options? They get more than they would in a MWC that didn't have Boise.

Bama could demand a bigger share of the gold from SEC but Bama understands the real money is in donations, tickets, and sponsorships and it is good for them to see Ole Miss spend a lot of money on a coach, makes them more credible driving fan interest. If Bama thinks there is more money to be made on their own, Bama will leave.

I agree with most of what you said except three things:

I'd say anyone aside from SEC or PAC 12 is open to the idea of "better dealing".

I don't see the G5 making that kind of arrangement, as aside from Boise (and not really them anymore), there are no ABSOLUTE REIGNING top dawgs. The P5 on the other hand, has a fairly static (not locked in stone, but pretty consistent) set of top teams. And not many teams are going to be so happy with their payout being THAT fluid, and risk giving up money.

And Bama can't go anywhere to increase their value. I guess in theory, they top 12 could break off into their own conference, but then they'd be fighting each other for the top 4 spots instead of "sharing it".