BCS: leaning away from AQ and toward +1

by fracas on Dec 9, 2011 5:51 AM PST

Bumped to the front page

The items of note from the article for me are:

1. AQ automatically gets $22.3 million, non-AQ gets $13.2 million

2. If non-AQ gets to BCS, they get $26.4 million

What i get from this are

1. Non-BCS programs moving to BCS conference is probably more about TV contract money than BCS money. Tthe increased from about $1 million to $2 million doesn't seem to be enough to offset travel cost and conference exit fees.

2. The MWC and CUSA are unlikely to merge. As an independent conference each gets $13.2 million each, as one conference they might get only $13.2 million total. I am highly skeptical that the combined merged conference would get $22.3, same as an AQ conference, and definitely not $26.4 million, more than an AQ conference.

3. Alliance makes sense with revenue sharing if one team from the Alliance Championship makes it to the BCS, then both conference could win more money.

4. If TV money is the key, each conference will be at a minimum of 10 teams with 9 conference games per team (to get sufficient conference games for airing). 12 teams usually means 8 conference games per team so unless the conference championship game can offset this in tv negotiation, i do not see either conference going to 12. Especially with an Alliance championship format unless there is special NCAA disposition for the two conference to have an intra-conference championship and an inter-conference championship.

5. Even with the BCS as a +1 format, the money situation is unlikely to change. All conferences will continue unequal revenue sharing. And there will be additional money for making the BCS championship series (final 4) and the actual championship game itself.

My conclusion:

MWC + CUSA forms an alliance but not a merger. Both will go to 10, possibly 11 teams (which may result in less non-conference games, which means less tier 3 money for each school and less opportunity to increase strength of schedule against the dominant conferences)

MWC 2013: Air Force, Colorado State, Fresno, Hawaii, Nevada-Las Vegas, Nevada-Reno, New Mexico, and Wyoming for a total of 8 teams. At risk for Big East poaching: Nevada or Hawaii.
MWC candidates: Utah State, San Jose State, UTEP, Idaho, New Mexico State. I suspect the first two.

CUSA 2013. Alabama-Birmingham, East Carolina, Marshal, Memphis, Rice, Southern Mississippi, Texas-El Paso, Tulane, and Tulsa for a total of 9 teams. At risk for Big East poaching: Tulsa, Memphis, East Carolina
CUSA candidates: Army, Navy, Florida International, Arkansas State, Louisiana Tech, North Texas

Tweet Comment 10 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Read More: conference realignment, bcs, cusa, mwc

Comments

Also agree and alliance is more likely

Reason is the current conference TV contacts will setup a messy situation (they aren’t alligned well). As such they will setup an seperate alliance entitiy which will own the cross-conference games and the championship game. These new entities will allow for new TV contracts which in turn will bring in more money to the various members. They will likely stick with 9-10 team conferences in order to allow this to happen (as well maximize money per school). But even so will likely need a waiver from the NCAA to allow the two conferences to hold a joint championship game. I think the talk from the UTEP AD was that the two conferences have been considering a similar realasionshiop for other sports. For example combining the two basketball championship tounaments… Could have a regional that determines a final four, then play an alliance championship. The reason for the delay I believe has to do with getting thru the mess of NCAA rules, and existing TV contracts.

by cokolman on Dec 9, 2011 8:01 AM PST reply actions

Alliance championship easy to arrange

Either as a 12th non conference game
Or as NCAA approved 13th championship game.

More difficult to get a 14th game approved

by fracas on Dec 9, 2011 10:10 AM PST via mobile up reply actions

I don't see Army and Navy

in CUSA. Army has been there and got out because they couldn’t win. They turned down the Big East for same. Navy would join the Big East first, and is looking for stability. Right now, nearly all the conferences are in flux. Also, I don’t think Nevada is in danger of being poached by the BE, but that could change if UNLV was asked and they insisted on Nevada as a partner. But I also believe Fresno State is head of the list right now.

Teamwork is what the Green Bay Packers were all about. They didn't do it for individual glory. They did it because they loved one another.---Vince Lombardi

by bluesyourdaddy on Dec 10, 2011 3:32 PM PST reply actions

Nevada is the better football program I thought

And IMO CUSA is more stable than big east. Look at the prenup for Boise State.
Navy and Army might consider because it is easier than big east and be in the same league as Air Force.

by fracas on Dec 10, 2011 7:47 PM PST reply actions

Neither is particularly stable

But either the MWC or the WAC will not exist in 2014; the only options the MWC has are to finish eating the WAC (save for shuffling LA Tech off to CUSA) or to completely merge with CUSA.

by drothgery on Dec 11, 2011 8:16 AM PST up reply actions

Kill of WAC

Idaho, Utah State and San Jose State to MWC to make 12?
Louisiana Tech, New Mexico to C-USA, as well as North Texas (or Florida Internationa) from Sun Belt; CUSA back to 12
(Texas San Antonio and Texas State, along with South Alabama will give Sun Belt 12 teams as well)

Alliance game of conference champions after conference championship game will need NCAA approval.

by fracas on Dec 10, 2011 9:09 PM PST reply actions

Don't see the advantage of adding Idaho

SJSU and USU make sense (especially USU’s basketball team). Idaho … what advantages does it bring, other than another “warm body” to the league? Small market, smallest FBS football stadium, mediocre athletic teams; I’m not sure what the appeal is.

If SJSU and USU go to the MWC, it basically cuts a hole in the WAC. If that happened …

Idaho’s nearest in-conference football neighbor would be New Mexico State. They might just bail out and re-join the Big Sky.
Seattle may re-attempt to join the West Coast Conference, and with the possibility of a revived hoops program, they may get back in.
If those two things happened, Boise State (for non-football) would then be hanging out on its own in the northwest, in a conference with Denver, New Mexico State, and Texas/Louisiana schools.

The WAC might still survive but be more of a Texas-centric league. Or it could be wiped out. Trying to speculate on conference realignment sometimes tests one’s sanity.

Assumption is the mother of all @#%-ups.
Recommended reading: Death to the BCS

by mdak06 on Dec 12, 2011 7:08 PM PST up reply actions

Agree about Idaho

Only because of the WMC/CUSA merger… If they were going it alone and going to 12 then Idaho might be attractive, more so than New Mexico State. I even suggested that a Idaho and Montana pair would be very intriguing (anyone catch the Montana D-1AA playoff game this weekend?). But with the merger in works I think 9 or 10 is the likely number for the Mountain West division. And I think Mountain West options come down to:

1) UTEP moves with the west
2) Utah State is added due to its very good bball program and recent progress in fball
3) San Jose State and hope the extra money stabilizes a very unstable fball program

Rest of the WAC members are on the outside looking in… With the exception of La Tech which has a good potential to end up in the C-USA eastern division. WAC fball will essentially be left for dead, as it is already short of the necessary number of members. WAC needs 8 to maintain NCAA classification and non-AQ BCS money distribution. What becomes of remaining members is purely speculative… Ideally New Mexico State, Texas State, and UTSA get into the Sun Belt. But that puts them at 13 fball members… Idaho could make it an even 14, and has experience playing there in the past with Denver was tolerated as an outsider for 11 years. It’s a guess as to how difficult the Sun Belt makes if happen and how committed the schools are to D-1AA.

by cokolman on Dec 13, 2011 9:32 AM PST up reply actions

WAC

Wac Teams remaining:
Louisiana Tech – good CUSA or Sun Belt candidate
Utah State – natural for MWC
San Jose State – decent pick up of a CA school to replace San Diego State
Idaho – reasonable pick up geographically to replace Boise State
New Mexico State – not worth it with New Mexico and UTEP, goes to Sun Belt
UT San Antonio – new program, Sun Belt
Texas State – also new program, Sun Belt

in this shuffle
MWC picks up 2 (Utah State + San Jose State) to go back to 10, or 12 with 2 more (Idaho and UTEP). UTEP would go if MWC is AQ and the Alliance is a bust.
CUSA picks up 1 (Louisiana Tech) and go to 10. Additional candidates might be North Texas, Arkansas State, Florida Atlantic (all Sun Belt) to go back to 12.
Sun Belt: loses up to 3 but gains New Mexico State, UT San Antonio, Texas State, South Alabama, one short of 12 for football.

by fracas on Dec 14, 2011 5:01 AM PST up reply actions

Bascially WAC Football is Dead

Even with Texas State and UTSA will be one short of NCAA classification… No NCAA classification means no BCS money, and little to no bowl prospects. I just can’t see New Mexico State, Texas State, and UTSA not calling the Sun Belt Conference HQ everyday by now. How many the WAC looses to the WMC/CUSA is up in the air, but here’s the senarios I envision (UTEP is the key):

1) MWC/CUSA 9 team divisions: USU to MWC
2) MWC/CUSA 9 team divisions: UTEP to MWC and LaTech to CUSA
3) MWC/CUSA 10 team divisions: UTEP/USU to MWC and LaTech/SunBelt to CUSA
4) MWC/CUSA 10 team divisions: USU/SJSU to MWC and LaTech to CUSA
5) MWC alone with 10: UTEP/USU
5) MWC alone with 10: USU/SJSU
6) MWC along with 12: UTEP/USU/SJSU/Idaho
6) MWC along with 12: USU/SJSU/Idaho/Montana

BTW. I think the most promising Sun Belts teams are Arkansas State, Western Kentucky, Middle Tennessee, and Troy.

by cokolman on Dec 14, 2011 9:54 AM PST up reply actions