The Realignment Scorecard

Harry · May 1, 2014

9. Conference USA

East: Florida Atlantic, Florida International, Marshall, Middle Tennessee, Old Dominion, UAB, Western Kentucky

West: Louisiana Tech, North Texas, Rice, Southern Miss, UTEP, UTSA

Mash five Sun Belt teams with some FBS newcomers and a few holdovers and you get the modern Conference USA, which has lost any identity it may have previously had. The number of people in America who can name the members of each division is probably about six, and the baffling and abrupt demise of Southern Miss football doesn't help its stature. Old Dominion has made the transition from the FCS level, and UNC Charlotte will follow in the next couple years.

Read more: http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/73649368/college-football-conference-realignment-guide-louisville-rutgers-maryland-sec-big-ten

Ben Gooding · May 1, 2014

Alright, so perception is that the MAC and MWC is better than CUSA. Those are conferences that we can pass up over a span of a handful of years. Very doable.

Harry · May 1, 2014

Us taking UNLV to the woodshed didn't hurt the perception of C-USA versus the MWC in my book.

Ben Gooding · May 1, 2014

Not at all. CUSA teams need to make it a point to schedule MWC and MAC schools in OOC games. Then just beat them. How many OOC games does CUSA have against those 2 conferences this upcoming season?

Would've loved to swap out Nichols with a New Mexico State or a Toledo. Nichols is a lose/lose game scenario for North Texas. Even after/if we win, what then? Pound our chest for beating Nichols? What if Nichols keeps it really competitive, and by god what if they win.

10Eagle10 · May 1, 2014

Not at all. CUSA teams need to make it a point to schedule MWC and MAC schools in OOC games. Then just beat them. 1. How many OOC games does CUSA have against those 2 conferences this upcoming season?
Would've loved to swap out Nichols with a New Mexico State or a Toledo. Nichols is a lose/lose game scenario for North Texas. Even after/if we win, what then? Pound our chest for beating Nichols? What if Nichols keeps it really competitive, and by god what if they win.

1. Zero

New Mexico State is in the WAC/Sun Belt. I think you meant New Mexico. And Nicholls St isn't all lose-lose. It's a chance for another home win at Apogee, which is always preferable to a road game. It's also a chance for Mac to work out any kinks from the first three games, and first conference game, before taking a week off. Many fans love to watch the young guys get in there... an FCS school or lower FBS (a la Idaho last year) allows us to see some of our future Mean Green stars.

jdennis82 · May 1, 2014

Tried to compile the games for CUSA teams against MWC, MAC, and Sun Belt (just a quick eye-ball of the conference schedule, so I may've missed some)...

THURSDAY, AUGUST 28

Bowling Green at WKU

SATURDAY, AUGUST 30

Marshall at Miami (Ohio)

Troy at UAB

UTEP at New Mexico

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 6

Louisiana Tech at Louisiana-Lafayette

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 13

Ohio at Marshall

Eastern Michigan at Old Dominion

New Mexico State at UTEP

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 20

Florida Atlantic at Wyoming

Marshall at Akron

Appalachian State at Southern Miss

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 4

New Mexico at UTSA

With 3 games against MAC opponents, Marshall really has an opportunity to carry the CUSA flag in 2014.

Edited May 1, 2014 by jdennis82

UNT90 · May 1, 2014

1. Zero

New Mexico State is in the WAC/Sun Belt. I think you meant New Mexico. And Nicholls St isn't all lose-lose. It's a chance for another home win at Apogee, which is always preferable to a road game. It's also a chance for Mac to work out any kinks from the first three games, and first conference game, before taking a week off. Many fans love to watch the young guys get in there... an FCS school or lower FBS (a la Idaho last year) allows us to see some of our future Mean Green stars.

And the inflexibility in the schedule required us to buy a home game or face the fact of having 3 five home game seasons in 4 years.

Plus we were in the same position last year and bought Idaho. FBS schools are more expensive.

Due to the scheduling situation we are in, I give the AD credit for finding a way to buy home games. Of course, it's also the AD's fault we are in this scheduling position.

GreenMachine · May 1, 2014

And the inflexibility in the schedule required us to buy a home game or face the fact of having 3 five home game seasons in 4 years.
Plus we were in the same position last year and bought Idaho. FBS schools are more expensive.
Due to the scheduling situation we are in, I give the AD credit for finding a way to buy home games. Of course, it's also the AD's fault we are in this scheduling position.

No! RV gets credit for all good things (even if unwarranted) but is not responsible for anything negative. Get ready for the wrath from a few RV bootlickers on here.

untjim1995 · May 1, 2014

Alright, so perception is that the MAC and MWC is better than CUSA. Those are conferences that we can pass up over a span of a handful of years. Very doable.

I think the MAC is overrated mostly because it is centered around East Coast and Midwest media outlets, as opposed to the SBCUSA. We can and should be better than the MAC over time. I don't think we will be that far from the AAC or the MWC, either, in our best years, but they have some strong teams year in and year out. The worst CUSA years will look like the SBC and MAC are better leagues, though.

GrandGreen · May 2, 2014

Not at all. CUSA teams need to make it a point to schedule MWC and MAC schools in OOC games. Then just beat them. How many OOC games does CUSA have against those 2 conferences this upcoming season?
Would've loved to swap out Nichols with a New Mexico State or a Toledo. Nichols is a lose/lose game scenario for North Texas. Even after/if we win, what then? Pound our chest for beating Nichols? What if Nichols keeps it really competitive, and by god what if they win.

You can't have what you propose and complain about not having 6 home games every year. Not saying you would, but many do. I agree, I had rather have a descent series with a peer and have 5 home games every other year, then rent a lower classification team to balance out the schedule because of the annual away guarantee game.

Edited May 2, 2014 by GrandGreen

Arkstfan · May 2, 2014

I think the MAC is overrated mostly because it is centered around East Coast and Midwest media outlets, as opposed to the SBCUSA. We can and should be better than the MAC over time. I don't think we will be that far from the AAC or the MWC, either, in our best years, but they have some strong teams year in and year out. The worst CUSA years will look like the SBC and MAC are better leagues, though.

The MAC isn't around the college football kingmakers of media.

The MAC is enjoying "the WAC effect". When Boise was ripping up the WAC they had some of the worst rated teams in the country in the league. But Boise was winning non-conference games and other than Nevada from time to time was winning WAC games.

The MAC's record against the Sun Belt when the MAC suddenly emerged as a quality league goes counter to the idea that it is a good top to bottom league. They've got a couple teams that can hang in any G5 league and a lot of schools that would be second division in any other G5 league.

But that's part of the trick. No one outside a few hardcores actually looks at a conference top to bottom, they care about the top couple and move on.

That's the risk facing AAC and MWC, they are strong enough down the line to make it hard to produce a 13-0 or 12-1 champ.

untjim1995 · May 2, 2014

The MAC isn't around the college football kingmakers of media.

The MAC is enjoying "the WAC effect". When Boise was ripping up the WAC they had some of the worst rated teams in the country in the league. But Boise was winning non-conference games and other than Nevada from time to time was winning WAC games.

The MAC's record against the Sun Belt when the MAC suddenly emerged as a quality league goes counter to the idea that it is a good top to bottom league. They've got a couple teams that can hang in any G5 league and a lot of schools that would be second division in any other G5 league.

But that's part of the trick. No one outside a few hardcores actually looks at a conference top to bottom, they care about the top couple and move on.

That's the risk facing AAC and MWC, they are strong enough down the line to make it hard to produce a 13-0 or 12-1 champ.

The MAC champions almost always are ranked or receiving votes. The Sun Belt champion never gets ranked. Why? Well, the MAC has been around a lot longer, but they also have decent media followings in Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Buffalo. The East Coast and the Upper Midwest still have a ton of people and press that plays a big hand in dictating who is "accepted" in college football and who isn't...hence, the term East Coast Bias, which is the Eastern Time Zone.

Down this way, the SBC and CUSA are always going to be way behind in coverage and support against the SEC, Big 12, and , to a much smaller extent, the AAC. Hell, look at the state of Arkansas--you guys can barely even register a blip on the radar in a state with no pro team, all because of the almight Razorbacks and the SEC, even though yall have been a good program for awhile now. But up there in MAC territory, its the Big Ten and Notre Dame almost exclusively, and then the MAC for college media coverage in those areas. The MAC doesn't fight through three layers of conferences above them for coverage--they fight through one. Its why they have had a perception advantage for awhile against the SBC and now CUSA teams. All I know is that a Todd Dodge coached UNT team actually beat a MAC team and should've beaten the other one (Ohio) and he didn't beat really anyone else. And this past year, we beat a pretty salty Ball State team at home and played Ohio to the gun up there. I stand by my belief that the MAC gets more credit than it deserves...

NTXCoog · May 2, 2014

The MAC champions almost always are ranked or receiving votes. The Sun Belt champion never gets ranked. Why? Well, the MAC has been around a lot longer, but they also have decent media followings in Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Buffalo. The East Coast and the Upper Midwest still have a ton of people and press that plays a big hand in dictating who is "accepted" in college football and who isn't...hence, the term East Coast Bias, which is the Eastern Time Zone.
.

I don't think that's it at all. I think it's because since 2008, at least one team in the MAC has a better a better record than every team in the SBC. Also since 2008, there have been four 12 win teams in the MAC and three 11 win teams. No SBC team has won 11 games in that timeframe.

Since 2008, only 3 non-AQ teams (including CUSA, WAC, and MWC) have finished ranked with 10 wins: BYU 2008, Utah 2009, and Tulsa 2010. The only MAC teams to finish ranked were CMU in 2009 and NIU in 2012. Both had 12 wins So again, it's not media. It's that no SBC team has even one 11 win season. Even two 12 win MAC teams didn't finish ranked.

The voters just don't reward non-AQ teams unless they're undefeated or have 1 or 2 losses with a fairly big win.

UNT90 · May 2, 2014

You can't have what you propose and complain about not having 6 home games every year. Not saying you would, but many do. I agree, I had rather have a descent series with a peer and have 5 home games every other year, then rent a lower classification team to balance out the schedule because of the annual away guarantee game.

OR... You could do both like just about every other mid major is able to pull off...

Arkstfan · May 2, 2014

MAC vs. SBC records before the bowls and number of league losses

2013

MAC Champ 10-3 (NIU was 12-1) (1) [runner-up no regular season league losses)

SBC Champ(s) 8-4 7-5 (2)

2012

MAC 11-2 (0)

SBC 9-3 (1)

2011

MAC 10-3 (1)

SBC 10-2 (0)

2010

MAC 9-4 (runner-up 10-3) (1) [runner-up 0 in regular season)

SBC 7-5 and 6-6 (2)

2009

MAC 11-1(0)

SBC 9-3 (0)

The MAC teams are averaging about one fewer league loss and generally play an easy non-conference slate. That gets an average of about 2 more wins and a record that gets you ranked. It also produces a couple dismal years in the bowls.

Arkstfan · May 2, 2014

The MAC champions almost always are ranked or receiving votes. The Sun Belt champion never gets ranked. Why? Well, the MAC has been around a lot longer, but they also have decent media followings in Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Buffalo. The East Coast and the Upper Midwest still have a ton of people and press that plays a big hand in dictating who is "accepted" in college football and who isn't...hence, the term East Coast Bias, which is the Eastern Time Zone.

Down this way, the SBC and CUSA are always going to be way behind in coverage and support against the SEC, Big 12, and , to a much smaller extent, the AAC. Hell, look at the state of Arkansas--you guys can barely even register a blip on the radar in a state with no pro team, all because of the almight Razorbacks and the SEC, even though yall have been a good program for awhile now. But up there in MAC territory, its the Big Ten and Notre Dame almost exclusively, and then the MAC for college media coverage in those areas. The MAC doesn't fight through three layers of conferences above them for coverage--they fight through one. Its why they have had a perception advantage for awhile against the SBC and now CUSA teams. All I know is that a Todd Dodge coached UNT team actually beat a MAC team and should've beaten the other one (Ohio) and he didn't beat really anyone else. And this past year, we beat a pretty salty Ball State team at home and played Ohio to the gun up there. I stand by my belief that the MAC gets more credit than it deserves...

Interesting you mention being a blip.

Poll released yesterday says Hog fans outnumber AState fans 4 to 1 with AState having about 385,000 self-identifying fans in a poll of registered voters in the state. Nate Silver did a national per team estimate in the early parts of 2011 season relying on multiple data sources but this was before the Freeze effect. He projected 312,058 fans for AState.

Interesting growth considering that we have one TV station that literally covers nothing but the Hogs in the sportscast. No NFL, NBA, MLB at all. The entire segment is Hogs but the other Little Rock stations are actually covering us more and merchandise is easier to find than ever.

NTXCoog · May 2, 2014

Nate Silver did a national per team estimate in the early parts of 2011 season relying on multiple data sources but this was before the Freeze effect. He projected 312,058 fans for AState.

I generally respect Nate Silver's statistical work, but this was one of the worst analyses of all time.

One of the primary bases for this analysis was a non-scientific internet poll. As he notes in his write up, Arkansas State was wildly over represented based on this piece. I'm sure the web site that sponsored this was spammed like crazy by ASU fans. But why would anyone base an analysis on a non-scientific poll? Garbage in/garbage out.

Another part of the analysis was based on doing internet searches for the term "college football." There are quite a few pretty serious football fans on this board. How many of you have Googled the phrase "college football?" I can honestly say that I never have. But let's assume that I did. The analysis counts searches by area. As a Houston Cougar fan, how would my search be counted towards UH when I live in the Denton area? Just more bad statistics.

Now let's look at some of the results:

How many think Iowa, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Miami have more fans than LSU?

UConn has more football fans than Louisville?

Duke has more football, not basketball, fans than Colorado and Kansas State?

Houston had the least number of fans in the old CUSA including Tulane and Rice? UAB has 2.4 times more fans than Houston? All but one old SBC team has more fans than Houston, and not by a small margin? 9 MAC teams have more fans than Houston? Idaho has more than UH?

Like I said, I respect much of Silver's work, but he really blew this one.

Harry · May 2, 2014

I don't think that's it at all. I think it's because since 2008, at least one team in the MAC has a better a better record than every team in the SBC. Also since 2008, there have been four 12 win teams in the MAC and three 11 win teams. No SBC team has won 11 games in that timeframe.

Since 2008, only 3 non-AQ teams (including CUSA, WAC, and MWC) have finished ranked with 10 wins: BYU 2008, Utah 2009, and Tulsa 2010. The only MAC teams to finish ranked were CMU in 2009 and NIU in 2012. Both had 12 wins So again, it's not media. It's that no SBC team has even one 11 win season. Even two 12 win MAC teams didn't finish ranked.

The voters just don't reward non-AQ teams unless they're undefeated or have 1 or 2 losses with a fairly big win.

NTXCoog what's the Cougar's pulse on the AAC? Are they liking it? I realize it has only been one year but wondered about your thoughts.

NTXCoog · May 3, 2014

NTXCoog what's the Cougar's pulse on the AAC? Are they liking it? I realize it has only been one year but wondered about your thoughts.

It's not everything we expected it to be (Louisville and others leaving. Tulsa/Tulane joining), but we are enjoying it. First year of football was great with Louisville being ranked and only losing one game PLUS UCF being ranked and winning a BCS bowl against the Big 12 champ. UH's role in the first season was about where we expected, not at the very top, but competitive against everyone. Don't like that some of the bottom feeders in the conference were as bad as they were and definitely need to improve if the perception of the conference is to stay the same or improve.

Basketball was again a tiny bit of a disappointment with the loss of the C7/BE basketball schools, but can't complain too much with winning the national championship as well as Louisville, Memphis, and Cinci playing well and even SMU stepping up even though they were slighted by the selection committee. I think that the upgrade in basketball and the success of SMU was the reason we stepped up and got a bigger name coach in Kelvin Sampson. Yes, he has his historical flaws, but no one can deny the on court success of his teams.

I'm sure it's a similar feeling (especially in football) to how you guys feel about moving to CUSA. Definite upgrade in conference for both of us, but not as much as we thought it would be (already listed AAC teams leaving and added. I'm sure UNT fans would prefer ECU, Tulsa, Tulane over ODU, Charlotte, old SBC adds). We'd both like another conference upgrade (UH to P5. UNT to AAC or P5). Better bowls for both of us. Don't know how much of a jump up you guys got in B-Ball. Definitely not as much as we had.

But then again, you guys are probably going to build rivalries faster than us with all the Texas schools around. But even though we've played a lot of TX schools historically, we've never really developed a rivalry against any of them. So maybe we'll find some new rivals in the AAC, possibly building on some CUSA history. Oddly enough Tulsa is the team we've played in football 2nd most in our history (40 games vs Rice. 38 vs Tulsa). And Tulsa fans still hate UH for a game that happened before most Tulsa fans were born (100-6 in 1968). So there's always potential there.

So short version, I don't think anyone could have predicted how good the conference would have been on the field/court (BCS win, BBall National Championship), but we still want more (AAC moving back up in the pecking order or UH moving up to an established P5 conference).

greenit · May 3, 2014

I can't help but think the AAC fumbled the ball by bringing SMU/Tulane/Tulsa along for the ride. I think they would have been better off using the base they had and adding more 30K+ metro schools. They could have had the same markets, but adding 4+ times the alumni base (and potential eyeballs). There are a handful of current CUSA teams that would have fit the bill (cough) compared to the 3 small schools they added. In today's football driven market, I don't see the benefit of adding schools that have an upside of 20k fans. There are several teams in CUSA or even SBC that have a floor of 20k fans with a huge potential if they were put in the right conference.

jdennis82 · May 3, 2014

The new CUSA needs a face.

The best outcome this year would be Marshall running the table, Rakeem Cato garnering darkhorse Heisman buzz, and finishing the season as the highest ranked team in the Group of Five conferences - earning a spot in one of the New Years Day "contract bowls"

The best thing for NT? Spoil Marshall's party the way Bowling Green did Northern Illinois' in 2013

Arkstfan · May 3, 2014

I generally respect Nate Silver's statistical work, but this was one of the worst analyses of all time.

One of the primary bases for this analysis was a non-scientific internet poll. As he notes in his write up, Arkansas State was wildly over represented based on this piece. I'm sure the web site that sponsored this was spammed like crazy by ASU fans. But why would anyone base an analysis on a non-scientific poll? Garbage in/garbage out.

Another part of the analysis was based on doing internet searches for the term "college football." There are quite a few pretty serious football fans on this board. How many of you have Googled the phrase "college football?" I can honestly say that I never have. But let's assume that I did. The analysis counts searches by area. As a Houston Cougar fan, how would my search be counted towards UH when I live in the Denton area? Just more bad statistics.

Now let's look at some of the results:

How many think Iowa, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Miami have more fans than LSU?

UConn has more football fans than Louisville?

Duke has more football, not basketball, fans than Colorado and Kansas State?

Houston had the least number of fans in the old CUSA including Tulane and Rice? UAB has 2.4 times more fans than Houston? All but one old SBC team has more fans than Houston, and not by a small margin? 9 MAC teams have more fans than Houston? Idaho has more than UH?

Like I said, I respect much of Silver's work, but he really blew this one.

Yet you have a scientific poll just released, and one done a couple years ago that produced similar (but larger) numbers for AState in Arkansas. So if anything trying to account for self-selection of a motivated fan base he actually understated.

Arkstfan · May 3, 2014

I can't help but think the AAC fumbled the ball by bringing SMU/Tulane/Tulsa along for the ride. I think they would have been better off using the base they had and adding more 30K+ metro schools. They could have had the same markets, but adding 4+ times the alumni base (and potential eyeballs). There are a handful of current CUSA teams that would have fit the bill (cough) compared to the 3 small schools they added. In today's football driven market, I don't see the benefit of adding schools that have an upside of 20k fans. There are several teams in CUSA or even SBC that have a floor of 20k fans with a huge potential if they were put in the right conference.

AAC used flawed reasoning in expansion, even though Houston produces good TV numbers, their market first approach failed to account for the fact that in the carriage economy they needed teams that have devoted fan bases.

They would have been better off at the get-go taking ECU over SMU. Houston is the only school they added (and kept) west of Cincinnati that has a large for G5 fan base that also produces good TV audiences. Northern Illinois would have been more valuable than say Tulane who produces worse TV audience numbers than SMU.

Two of the least watched games last year that were covered by the national rankings were Memphis-Temple and FIU-FAU. Ok, no one adds Memphis and Temple expecting a big football audience, you add them for hoops and hoops does matter (See Big East drawing double the TV money of AAC) but FIU-FAU don't offer that offset. The Florida twins simply face two significant issues. One, they are young programs without a strongly established base yet, they are a nice future bet but won't deliver today. The other is the Miami market is a tough nut to crack. Miami couldn't regularly sell out as top 5 football program, they are one of two markets to fail in Major League Soccer and baseball, basketball, hockey have never lived up to the projections of support except when they are among the top 3 or 4 teams in their league and support falls right back soon as they leave the elite, they have been unable to develop a large hardcore fan base.

AAC probably would have been better off staying within the eastern time zone raiding the other leagues.

NTXCoog · May 3, 2014

Yet you have a scientific poll just released, and one done a couple years ago that produced similar (but larger) numbers for AState in Arkansas. So if anything trying to account for self-selection of a motivated fan base he actually understated.

Link? Not that I don't believe it. I'd just like to understand it better.