C-USA/Sun Belt merger?

[YesAppCan]

Actually it was mentioned by this blog---See # 3

http://g5conferencenews.blogspot.com/20 ... -will.html

[APPdiesel]

I think in some way, shape, or form this will happen some day. This idea of "let's add X-university because they'll get us market share...who cares if they're 400 miles from their closest conference opponent" is an unsustainable model. I'm sorry, but I doubt anyone in Texas really cares about App State football...and that's fine. Maybe that's ok for Power 5 schools who have huge budgets, but G5 need to refocus and redraw the lines to survive and thrive.

[/\PP ST/\TE GRAD 09]

I'd like to win the SunBelt title a few times before we consider jumping or merging with C-USA. This whole NCAA not paying players, t.v. contracts, conference alignment is ruining the sport of college football. It is setting up to make only thw big schools relevant. Make it stop!!!

[asu66]

It is setting up to make only thw big schools relevant. Make it stop!!!

The P5s want to stomp all G5s into grease spots on the pavement. We are just annoyances to them. They'd like us to go away; soon and forever.

[APPdiesel]

I'd like to win the SunBelt title a few times before we consider jumping or merging with C-USA. This whole NCAA not paying players, t.v. contracts, conference alignment is ruining the sport of college football. It is setting up to make only thw big schools relevant. Make it stop!!!

My point is we're making ourselves irrelevant with these far flung "made-for-tv-yet-somehow-can't-pull-more-than-a-two-share" conferences. A hypothetical conference footprint of NC, VA, WV, TN, GA is intensely relevant within that footprint. Unless they went to school at App, nobody in Texas is going to be wearing an App shirt just because they saw us on TV and "like the way we play". It's just not going to happen.

Nobody likes drastic change. Ask anyone if blowing up the G5 conferences and starting over needs to happen, and knee jerk reaction will be "no, we've worked for 20 years trying to build these rivalries", but ask them to really look at it and decide if playing a team 1,500 miles away makes any sense at all and they'll agree it's stupid.

[MtnDevil95]

I can't stand the geographic disparity at either the G5 or the P5 level. The biggest rivalries in sports generally include teams of close proximity (Duke/UNCCHeat, Auburn/Alabama, Michigan/Ohio State, even Yankees/Red Sox). Sure there are notable exceptions that have come around, Lakers/Celtics I’m looking at you, but in college sports the overwhelming majority of rivalries, longstanding or otherwise, come with geographic proximity.

The other big consideration in a rivalry is competitiveness. As the world becomes smaller with ubiquitous TV/Streaming coverage and social media, competitiveness among rivals may supplant proximity to some extent, but truly relevant and engaging rivalries require both. For example, who is Vanderbilt’s SEC rival? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Go ask EZU fans who their biggest football rival is, and I’m willing to bet 8 or 9 of 10 would say either UNC-CHeat or Moo-U, and we have a better shot at getting into the ACC than the Pirates, so what does that say about conference alignment? Or is it more of an indictment of “wanna be” syndrome from the G-vegas crowd?

I digress. My long overdue point, is that, in college sports, better rivalries have 2 primary components. First, geographic proximity and second, year over year competitiveness, and I personally would like to see the G5 teams re-align with some geography in mind. I’d love to see us, EZU, Marshall, and Stink in the same conference.

[EastHallApp]

Go ask EZU fans who their biggest football rival is, and I’m willing to bet 8 or 9 of 10 would say either UNC-CHeat or Moo-U, and we have a better shot at getting into the ACC than the Pirates, so what does that say about conference alignment? Or is it more of an indictment of “wanna be” syndrome from the G-vegas crowd?

The latter. Ask the same question of UNC or State fans and zero out of 10 would name ECU. In fact they probably wouldn't make the top 3-5 rivals for either school.

But I agree with much of your post.

[Gonzo]

It's fun to speculate, but a "blog" that doesn't even pay for its own domain name is worth about as much as a thread on the MMB. I'd put more stock in Underdog Dynasty or Bleacher Report, and that's saying something since I put ~0 stock in Underdog Dynasty and Bleacher Report.

[APPdiesel]

It's fun to speculate, but a "blog" that doesn't even pay for its own domain name is worth about as much as a thread on the MMB. I'd put more stock in Underdog Dynasty or Bleacher Report, and that's saying something since I put ~0 stock in Underdog Dynasty and Bleacher Report.

No one said this was credible "new grade" information...it is, in fact, a blogger stating his opinion on what could happen with G5 conferences. The only thing it's good for is sparking conversation.

By the way, I heard from a "source" the walls at KBS will be covered with graphic pads/wrap not unlike the ones you see in some NFL stadiums.

[Gonzo]

It's fun to speculate, but a "blog" that doesn't even pay for its own domain name is worth about as much as a thread on the MMB. I'd put more stock in Underdog Dynasty or Bleacher Report, and that's saying something since I put ~0 stock in Underdog Dynasty and Bleacher Report.

No one said this was credible "new grade" information...it is, in fact, a blogger stating his opinion on what could happen with G5 conferences. The only thing it's good for is sparking conversation.

By the way, I heard from a "source" the walls at KBS will be covered with graphic pads/wrap not unlike the ones you see in some NFL stadiums.

Easy, man. Just clarifying.

I watched practice on August 8. At that time they were painting the walls with primer and black paint. I'd love to see what you described.

[APPARJ]

It's fun to speculate, but a "blog" that doesn't even pay for its own domain name is worth about as much as a thread on the MMB. I'd put more stock in Underdog Dynasty or Bleacher Report, and that's saying something since I put ~0 stock in Underdog Dynasty and Bleacher Report.

No one said this was credible "new grade" information...it is, in fact, a blogger stating his opinion on what could happen with G5 conferences. The only thing it's good for is sparking conversation.

By the way, I heard from a "source" the walls at KBS will be covered with graphic pads/wrap not unlike the ones you see in some NFL stadiums.

Like the ones around the concession stands.

[APPdiesel]

I watched practice on August 8. At that time they were painting the walls with primer and black paint. I'd love to see what you described.

That would look very cool. I like that Doug Gillan has an eye for those kinds of details. The things none of us think of but when they're done we're like, "ooooh yeah we should've done that years ago, that looks great". He's bringing that SEC eye in, and I love it.

Even if they stay all black it'll look 10x better than the white walls.

[ASUGoose]

My forecast for eventual mergers of the conferences landscape (assumes members for all sports):

POWER 4:

ACC:
1. Duke
2. UNC
3. NC State
4. Wake Forest
5. Notre Dame
6. UVA
7. Syracuse
8. UCONN
9. Ga Tech
10. Pitt
11. Penn St.
12. Boston College
13. Louisville
14. Clemson
15. FSU
16. Miami

SEC:
1. Florida
2. Tennessee
3. Vandy
4. South Carolina
5. Kentucky
6. Georgia
7. Va Tech
8. West Virginia
9. Missouri
10. Texas A&M
11. Ole Miss
12. Miss St.
13. LSU
14. Arkansas
15. Auburn
16. Alabama

Big 10:
1. Ohio State
2. Michigan
3. Michigan State
4. Wisconsin
5. Minnesota
6. Illinois
7. Northwestern
8. Purdue
9. Indiana
10. Iowa
11. Kansas
12. Kansas State
13. Maryland
14. TCU
15. Nebraska
16. Rutgers

Pac 12:
1. USC
2. Cal
3. UCLA
4. Stanford
5. Arizona
6. Arizona State
7. Oregon
8. Oregon State
9. Washington
10. Washington State
11. Oklahoma
12. Oklahoma State
13. Texas
14. Baylor
15. Utah
16. Colorado

GROUP of 4:

Mtn. West:
1. Boise State
2. BYU
3. Utah State
4. Hawaii
5. UNLV
6. Nevada
7. New Mexico
8. New Mexico State
9. Air Force
10. Colorado State
11. Wyoming
12. Montana
13. North Dakota State
14. Fresno State
15. San Diego State
16. San Jose State

MAC:
1. Akron
2. Ohio
3. Miami (Ohio)
4. Toledo
5. Cincinnati
6. Kent State
7. Bowling Green
8. Temple
9. Buffalo
10. Central Michigan
11. Eastern Michigan
12. Western Michigan
13. Western Kentucky
14. Northern Illinois
15. Illinois State
16. Northern Iowa
17. Ball State
18. Missouri State

Big 12 (or some other name):
1. Texas Tech
2. Texas State
3. SMU
4. Houston
5. UTEP
6. North Texas
7. UTSA
8. Rice
9. Iowa State
10. Tulsa
11. Louisiana
12. UL Monroe
13. La Tech
14. Tulane
15. Southern Miss
16. Arkansas State

American (or some other name):
1. Navy
2. Army
3. Old Dominion
4. Marshall
5. East Carolina
6. Charlotte
7. App State
8. Georgia Southern
9. Georgia State
10. Memphis
11. Middle Tenn State
12. UAB
13. South Alabama
14. Troy
15. UCF
16. USF
17. Coastal Carolina
18. Florida Atlantic

[APPdiesel]

My forecast for eventual mergers of the conferences landscape (assumes members for all sports)

So ASUGoose, your model assumes (in our 18 team conference) that you'd play your 8 divisional opponents and 4 out of conference, followed by a conference championship (the only time you'd play a team from the other half of your conference)...then whatever else - bowls, playoff, etc?

Geographically speaking it makes sense, and anyone with a brain can see that...Any realignment like that would force (key word) certain university presidents to accept it. ECU would fight it kicking and screaming if they were forced to give up their association with Cincy, Memphis, etc for which they've been fighting for years just to be forced into a conference with App, ODU, Charlotte, etc. As I'm sure Cincy would much malign being forced into a conference with Eastern Michigan.

Very interesting thought though.

[ASUGoose]

My forecast for eventual mergers of the conferences landscape (assumes members for all sports)

So ASUGoose, your model assumes (in our 18 team conference) that you'd play your 8 divisional opponents and 4 out of conference, followed by a conference championship (the only time you'd play a team from the other half of your conference)...then whatever else - bowls, playoff, etc?

Geographically speaking it makes sense, and anyone with a brain can see that...Any realignment like that would force (key word) certain university presidents to accept it. ECU would fight it kicking and screaming if they were forced to give up their association with Cincy, Memphis, etc for which they've been fighting for years just to be forced into a conference with App, ODU, Charlotte, etc. As I'm sure Cincy would much malign being forced into a conference with Eastern Michigan.

Very interesting thought though.

Yeah the thought would be to play 9 conference games (8 divisional and 1 cross/rival) then 3 OOC (essentially removing FCS opponent) then conference title game between divisional champs. Bowls/playoff thereafter, hopefully by then the playoff is at 8 teams with one guarantee spot for Group of 4 in field.

Yep looks like their are going to be a few teams that were once P5 or those with aspirations for Power conference membership will get a raw deal.. Not enough chairs at the table.

[MtnDevil95]

I like the idea of this, and think we could analyze the crap out of the specific teams within each geographic area and each conference. I would question the basic exchange of VaTech for UConn in the ACC. Football rules the roost, and the ACC is not about to give up VaTech, as long as Beamer and Bud continue to get love on the national stage (deserved or not).

Outside of nit picking specific programs across the proposal, I think this would be great for college athletics. I also think that something like this would build fan bases and rivalries and potentially increase attendance at games, but it will never happen. TV money is too powerful, unfortunately.

[AtlAppMan]

Bottomline is colleges and conferences will gravitate towards a model where the money supports it.

The big players will go where the big money is. If a super conference model supports it then they would seriously consider that model but if it merely dilutes their take home pay then they will not do it. Right now I don't see the motivation for many of these conferences to super size. In fact, in most cases it just dilutes the current take home pay. That is why the Big 12 is sitting on fence right now with expansion. It has to make monetary sense. They consider adding but then figure out that an add has to come with xx$$$ of net addtional income and that is their dilema. There doesn't appear to be a player that can deliver or at best, any available are marginal.

IMO, CUSA is a good example of overstaffing and now they have too many schools. They hedged against future expansion by overloading their conference and now the music has stopped and they are bulging with too many schools.

I think at best you may get a couple more moves at P5 level (i.e. Big 12) and that is it for next 10 yrs. For G5, at best CUSA and SBC could reshuffle but at this point I don't think you have the willingness to really make it happen.

[Nugget49]

Let's face it, half of C-USA came from The Belt and paid to make the change, so I cannot imagine them wanting to go back. Just like half of the AAC came from C-USA and would not welcome a merger. I think rivalries are what makes college sports great, and geography is a solid foundation for building some, but the people that make the big decisions do not agree with me. For now, it is TV that drives everything.

[moehler]

I agree, for now, TV is the driving force in how conferences are formed, but, like stated before, tv revenue is finite, cost of running a collage program isn't, every year the gap widens between revenue vs cost, and if the new CUSA contract isn't as profitable as the old one, I think that will be a moment when the SBC and CUSA officials atleast start informal talks about the future of both conferences. Regardless, I don't think anything is going to happen atleast in the next 3 years.

[JTApps1]

Let's face it, half of C-USA came from The Belt and paid to make the change, so I cannot imagine them wanting to go back. Just like half of the AAC came from C-USA and would not welcome a merger. I think rivalries are what makes college sports great, and geography is a solid foundation for building some, but the people that make the big decisions do not agree with me. For now, it is TV that drives everything.

The only difference is it wouldn't really be going back as much as a total reshuffling and/or formation of new conferences. I could see a situation similar to the MWC happening again.