No More MW / C-USA Merger

[UConnDan97]

It appears that the money isn't there for them to make the merger anymore:

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/17/report-c-usa-mwc-no-longer-merging/

The irony in this is that the merger was in effect killed by what would be lost revenue....from basketball! Still, I don't wish harm on any other team (except one) or any other conference (except one...that we might join someday). If there ends up being a "feel-good" portion from this, it might be that the C-USA takes up Louisiana Tech, a team that has been crapped on long before realignment as we know it by having to join the WAC and with yearly trips to Fresno or Hawaii. Brutal...

 

[Vowelguy]

"The Mountain West will have to replenish the spots left by Boise State, San Diego State and TCU; C-USA will have to replace Houston, SMU, Memphis and Central Florida."

Who says either conference needs to replace all those members?

Unless the CUSA is wed to a conference title game in FB, I might just add FIU & N Texas and be done. Wait for Georgia St & Charlotte. But if they must, then maybe Fla Atl & MTSU next.

Mtn West's future membership is 7 full-time, 8 for FB. Slim pickings out west. Maybe Utah St &/or SJ St.

WAC has gotta be shaking in its boots. Their future membership is just 7 for FB, and two of those are new or 1-AA upgrades. And if they lose two more... What's the minimum conference size allowed?

 

[UConnDan97]

"The Mountain West will have to replenish the spots left by Boise State, San Diego State and TCU; C-USA will have to replace Houston, SMU, Memphis and Central Florida."

Who says either conference needs to replace all those members?

Unless the CUSA is wed to a conference title game in FB, I might just add FIU & N Texas and be done. Wait for Georgia St & Charlotte. But if they must, then maybe Fla Atl & MTSU next.

Mtn West's future membership is 7 full-time, 8 for FB. Slim pickings out west. Maybe Utah St &/or SJ St.

WAC has gotta be shaking in its boots. Their future membership is just 7 for FB, and two of those are new or 1-AA upgrades. And if they lose two more... What's the minimum conference size allowed?

That's a good question about minimum size of conferences. I'm not sure, but I'm guessing six teams? The WAC is almost certainly going to be the one that is worst off in this whole thing. La Tech has to be pleading with C-USA to get out of the WAC and relieve all the travel for its team. I bet they might even take the SunBelt, assuming the money is not all that different. And as you stated, the new 1-A teams are in the east. The Mountain West is probably going to gobble up any value that the WAC has left, in order to make up for their losses (even though their tv station is closing up shop). The realignment wheel keeps spinning...

 

[kingdobbs]

WAC has gotta be shaking in its boots. Their future membership is just 7 for FB, and two of those are new or 1-AA upgrades. And if they lose two more... What's the minimum conference size allowed?

The standard for all sports is six. Teams may form conferences in certain sports (read: not football or basketball) with fewer members, but those conferences are typically not eligible for automatic bids, so it rarely occurs (grandfathering restrictions apply for those leagues which fall below because of defections). ACC lacrosse is one example; they only have four members (but with Syracuse coming aboard, it'll be five), but those four are usually top-tier programs so their tournament access is fairly secure.

To be in football or basketball, though, you NEED six.

 

[Dann]

2020:
-all will goto 16, 18 or 20. big conf's will go to 16 and 5 years from now will pick again from smaller conf's for 18 or 20 next tv contract go around.
-d1a's will either upgrade or d2.
-we will have a 4 team bcs playoff for the big 4 leagues which will be expanded to 8 next go around. acc will earn its bid as a 5th with the other 3 spots being open.

Big West(20):
mountain-tulsa/nt/rise/utep/nm/nmst/cst//wy/montst
pacific-hawaii/unr/sj/fresno/idaho/utst/mont/sacst/ps/naz

Big South(20):
gulf-arkst/latech/ulm/smiss/uab/ast/tulane/mt/wk/mizzust
atlantic-fiu/fau/fgc/gs/gast/appst/uncc/ecu/town/fur

Big North(20):
east-umass/buff/jmu/w&m/rich/del/mar/ohio/unh/maine
west-ball/ni/miami/wm/em/cm/bg/tol/kent/ak

PAC:
12 already + bsu/byu/sdsu/unlv

B12:
10 already + fsu/gt/clem/lville/miami/mem

B10:
12 already + nd/uva/md/unc

SEC:
12 already + ncst/vt

ACC:
duke/wake/cuse/pitt/bc/ruty/uconn/temple/navy/army/nova/gtown/usf/ucf

beer me

 

[MattMang23]

Guess the MWC and Conf USA merger falling through proves once and for all that size doesn't matter.

 

[UConnDan97]

2020:
-all will goto 16, 18 or 20. big conf's will go to 16 and 5 years from now will pick again from smaller conf's for 18 or 20 next tv contract go around.
-d1a's will either upgrade or d2.
-we will have a 4 team bcs playoff for the big 4 leagues which will be expanded to 8 next go around. acc will earn its bid as a 5th with the other 3 spots being open.

Big West(20):
mountain-tulsa/nt/rise/utep/nm/nmst/cst//wy/montst
pacific-hawaii/unr/sj/fresno/idaho/utst/mont/sacst/ps/naz

Big South(20):
gulf-arkst/latech/ulm/smiss/uab/ast/tulane/mt/wk/mizzust
atlantic-fiu/fau/fgc/gs/gast/appst/uncc/ecu/town/fur

Big North(20):
east-umass/buff/jmu/w&m/rich/del/mar/ohio/unh/maine
west-ball/ni/miami/wm/em/cm/bg/tol/kent/ak

PAC:
12 already + bsu/byu/sdsu/unlv

B12:
10 already + fsu/gt/clem/lville/miami/mem

B10:
12 already + nd/uva/md/unc

SEC:
12 already + ncst/vt

ACC:
duke/wake/cuse/pitt/bc/ruty/uconn/temple/navy/army/nova/gtown/usf/ucf

beer me

You are a funny, funny man. So please for the love of God explain to me why the ACC would voluntarily make what is publicly known to be the Big East's most critical mistake; that is to have "football only" schools side-by-side with the basketball-centric schools? Nova and Gtown are not going to the ACC; not now, not ever. Also, do you REALLY believe that SDSU and UNLV will be in the Pac?? And I thought you were one of the "Only Four Big Conferences" group of posters, yet here you have 5. Finally, what would the incentive be for the "have nots" to form superconferences that stretch them geographically all over the place, if it doesn't land them any of the bigger money bowl games / playoff games / tv contracts?

In the immortal words of Judge Judy, "If it doesn't smell right, it ain't true!" (yes...you made me go there)

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I bet the exit fees are driving this. I bet someone's lawyers determined that Boise and friends were going to beat the exit fees if CUSA and the MWC merged or were in the process of merging, so the leagues need to stay separate until that point. That is millions of dollars of revenue.

CUSA's NCAA "Units" probably mostly belong to Memphis, and those will expire relatively soon. Didn't Memphis have to forfeit all the revenues from its Championship Game appearance under Calipari? Also, with Memphis and Houston leaving, CUSA is looking pretty ragged as a basketball conference. The MWC still has UNLV, New Mexico and Colorado State, and is adding Nevada and likely Utah State.

There is no reason to have a WAC. That league should collapse into the MWC, CUSA and Sun Belt. Idaho will have a lot of travel ahead of them, but otherwise consolidating those 4 into 3 is a good idea. If I were Idaho and NM State, i would try to cut a deal with the MWC for the 11th and 12th slots in the league. Although, if I were the MWC, I would take the WAC name. I think it has more brand equity than the MWC.

 

[Dann]

You are a funny, funny man. So please for the love of God explain to me why the ACC would voluntarily make what is publicly known to be the Big East's most critical mistake; that is to have "football only" schools side-by-side with the basketball-centric schools? Nova and Gtown are not going to the ACC; not now, not ever. Also, do you REALLY believe that SDSU and UNLV will be in the Pac?? And I thought you were one of the "Only Four Big Conferences" group of posters, yet here you have 5. Finally, what would the incentive be for the "have nots" to form superconferences that stretch them geographically all over the place, if it doesn't land them any of the bigger money bowl games / playoff games / tv contracts?

In the immortal words of Judge Judy, "If it doesn't smell right, it ain't true!" (yes...you made me go there)

-nova and gtown upgrade football. thats the whole d1aa thing goes away. thats why i have others that upgrade there also like richmond and furman for example.
-the pac will tap nevada at some point. alot of tvs for there contract $$$$
-the confs i have set up are great travel wise btw
-its not as much tv $$ for the smaller confs as to stability if they ever get raided again.
-you know i just play around with endless garbage here for fun. i enjoy it.

 

[UConnDan97]

I bet the exit fees are driving this. I bet someone's lawyers determined that Boise and friends were going to beat the exit fees if CUSA and the MWC merged or were in the process of merging, so the leagues need to stay separate until that point. That is millions of dollars of revenue.

CUSA's NCAA "Units" probably mostly belong to Memphis, and those will expire relatively soon. Didn't Memphis have to forfeit all the revenues from its Championship Game appearance under Calipari? Also, with Memphis and Houston leaving, CUSA is looking pretty ragged as a basketball conference. The MWC still has UNLV, New Mexico and Colorado State, and is adding Nevada and likely Utah State.

There is no reason to have a WAC. That league should collapse into the MWC, CUSA and Sun Belt. Idaho will have a lot of travel ahead of them, but otherwise consolidating those 4 into 3 is a good idea. If I were Idaho and NM State, i would try to cut a deal with the MWC for the 11th and 12th slots in the league. Although, if I were the MWC, I would take the WAC name. I think it has more brand equity than the MWC.

Nelson, the thought had crossed my mind about the exit fees also. But then I realized that the merger would only have to be delayed one year if that were the case. This article makes it sound like the merger won't be looked at again for any time in the near future, and may be revisited only in the long term.

As for the WAC, I agree with you 100%. If people think that the NNBE is the Island of Misfit Toys, then they need to take a look at the WAC. At least our toys can play with many of the big boys. There is nothing more senseless than cross-country travel if it is going to eventually cost you large sums of money to do it! As far as taking the WAC's name, I would say that the Mountain West definitely has more "brand name strength" than the WAC. It is perhaps unfairly stronger, since Boise will have resided in that conference for all of three years, I think? But remember that the MW was the conference that was making the most waves as the league trying to show they were better than the old Big East. They weren't, but they made enough waves. Still some brand name value, in my opinion.

 

[UConnDan97]

-nova and gtown upgrade football. thats the whole d1aa thing goes away. thats why i have others that upgrade there also like richmond and furman for example.
-the pac will tap nevada at some point. alot of tvs for there contract $$$$
-the confs i have set up are great travel wise btw
-its not as much tv $$ for the smaller confs as to stability if they ever get raided again.
-you know i just play around with endless garbage here for fun. i enjoy it.

We enjoy it too, HuskyfanDan!
As far as everyone upgrading, it's not going to happen, in my opinion. Some of these stadiums are very small, and some of these schools have no chance of finding the funding to upgrade.
Also, you set up the divisions for great travel, but not the conferences. I am assuming that you are having cross-games between the divisions of a conference, unless I am not understanding your model. If there are no cross-games, then how is it a conference and not a merger (like the MW / C-USA)? And even with the MW/C-USA, I think they planned on cross-games as well.

Either way, don't let me discourage you from playing with the endless garbage. It gives me something to write about!

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Are these what these 3 leagues will look like?

MWC

Current:

Colorado State, UNLV, Wyoming, New Mexico, Air Force

On the way:

Nevada, Fresno, Hawaii

Possible additions:

San Jose, Utah State

CUSA

Current:

Southern Miss, Marshall, UAB, ECU, Tulsa, Rice, Tulane, UTEP

Possible Additions:

Louisiana Tech, North Texas, FIU, Charlotte (?)

Sun Belt:

Whoever is left.


It would behoove CUSA and the MWC to both go to 12, and negotiate cooperatively for a new TV deal in 3-4 years when their deals both expire. 24 teams of inventory, in the current market, would be probably get an equivalent contract to the current Big East deal, if not better, on the football side. Basketball could be a challenge.

 

[Dann]

Are these what these 3 leagues will look like?

MWC

Current:

Colorado State, UNLV, Wyoming, New Mexico, Air Force

On the way:

Nevada, Fresno, Hawaii

Possible additions:

San Jose, Utah State

CUSA

Current:

Southern Miss, Marshall, UAB, ECU, Tulsa, Rice, Tulane, UTEP

Possible Additions:

Louisiana Tech, North Texas, FIU, Charlotte (?)

Sun Belt:

Whoever is left.


It would behoove CUSA and the MWC to both go to 12, and negotiate cooperatively for a new TV deal in 3-4 years when their deals both expire. 24 teams of inventory, in the current market, would be probably get an equivalent contract to the current Big East deal, if not better, on the football side. Basketball could be a challenge.

i think thats pretty close to right for this currently. the mwc and wac need to merge and the cusa and sun need to merge(somewhat).

 

[UConnDan97]

I agree with those statements too, except for the one where Nelson said they would get an equivalent contract to the NNBE. I don't buy that. The NNBE contract might be the sixth best in the country after it's all said and done, but I think it will still be more than noticeably better than anything the MW or C-USA will be able to muster up. Just my opinion, but that's my thinking.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Nelson, the thought had crossed my mind about the exit fees also. But then I realized that the merger would only have to be delayed one year if that were the case. This article makes it sound like the merger won't be looked at again for any time in the near future, and may be revisited only in the long term.

As for the WAC, I agree with you 100%. If people think that the NNBE is the Island of Misfit Toys, then they need to take a look at the WAC. At least our toys can play with many of the big boys. There is nothing more senseless than cross-country travel if it is going to eventually cost you large sums of money to do it! As far as taking the WAC's name, I would say that the Mountain West definitely has more "brand name strength" than the WAC. It is perhaps unfairly stronger, since Boise will have resided in that conference for all of three years, I think? But remember that the MW was the conference that was making the most waves as the league trying to show they were better than the old Big East. They weren't, but they made enough waves. Still some brand name value, in my opinion.

Exit Fees - There is some case law that would support a position of the exiting schools that, if a contract exists today to dissolve the conference in the near future, then the dissolution of that contract should be considered effective immediately for the purposes of determining liquidated damages from that league.

There is a corollary to this in M&A with earnouts of a purchased company, which I can't explain in less than 1,000 words, but those things are litigated all the time and cover similar ground to what is under consideration here. The short answer is simply setting a date for a day or a year after the exit may not work if that date is contractually set today because a court may deem the dissolution to have already occurred for the purposes of exit fees. This is particularly true if the exit fees are structured as liquidated damages for departure, which almost all of them are. Furthermore, the fact that they were going to dissolve the TV deals probably further creates problems since many of the exit fees are calculated based on TV revenue.

WAC -The WAC/MWC struggle of a couple of years ago was a dry run of what would happen with the ACC and the Big East. The WAC was in a stronger position from a TV standpoint, with much broader distribution on ESPN GamePlan than anything the MTN got. Most importantly, the WAC was coming up to a new TV deal, while the MTN deal still had 6 years on it. The smart play would have been to merge the MWC back into the WAC and go to market with one deal. If you had to cut a deal with the WAC to cut a few of the bottom programs loose, I am sure they would do it. Instead, the MWC nibbled away at the WAC, never getting strong enough to measurably improve their own financial position in the near term, but slowly undermining the WAC to the point it was no longer viable.

As for the WAC name, most people I know call the MWC the WAC. I bet 80% of casual football fans would name the WAC before they got to the MWC if you asked them to name all the conferences.

 

[coachcap]

Exit Fees - There is some case law that would support a position of the exiting schools that, if a contract exists today to dissolve the conference in the near future, then the dissolution of that contract should be considered effective immediately for the purposes of determining liquidated damages from that league.

There is a corollary to this in M&A with earnouts of a purchased company, which I can't explain in less than 1,000 words, but those things are litigated all the time and cover similar ground to what is under consideration here. The short answer is simply setting a date for a day or a year after the exit may not work if that date is contractually set today because a court may deem the dissolution to have already occurred for the purposes of exit fees. This is particularly true if the exit fees are structured as liquidated damages for departure, which almost all of them are. Furthermore, the fact that they were going to dissolve the TV deals probably further creates problems since many of the exit fees are calculated based on TV revenue.

WAC -The WAC/MWC struggle of a couple of years ago was a dry run of what would happen with the ACC and the Big East. The WAC was in a stronger position from a TV standpoint, with much broader distribution on ESPN GamePlan than anything the MTN got. Most importantly, the WAC was coming up to a new TV deal, while the MTN deal still had 6 years on it. The smart play would have been to merge the MWC back into the WAC and go to market with one deal. If you had to cut a deal with the WAC to cut a few of the bottom programs loose, I am sure they would do it. Instead, the MWC nibbled away at the WAC, never getting strong enough to measurably improve their own financial position in the near term, but slowly undermining the WAC to the point it was no longer viable.

As for the WAC name, most people I know call the MWC the WAC. I bet 80% of casual football fans would name the WAC before they got to the MWC if you asked them to name all the conferences.

I'll agree on that. It's likely because the WAC has been around so long & the MWC is an offshoot byproduct of it.

 

[junglehusky]

Depends on age... younger fans might know the MWC better than the WAC, which was more of a thing in the 90's (before the MWC formed) and decades prior.

 

[john2153]

Just came out today that CUSA will add UTSA for 2013, also looking at La Tech, FIU, and North Texas. With the MWC also looking at Utah St and San Jose St , the WAC is pretty much dead.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/brett-mcmurphy/18873583

 

[UConnDan97]

The La Tech / C-USA thing is a no-brainer. I am surprised that La Tech stuck out the WAC thing as long as they did (i.e., not going to the SunBelt). The travel on them has been brutal over the years, and I'm not sure that the WAC's money allowed them to run in the black...

 

[Vowelguy]

For 2012-13, WAC will have 10, but just 7 in FB -- Idaho, LaTech, NMSU, SJSU, Utah St, UTSA, Texas St.

For 2013-14, they lose UTSA & add Boise St, giving them 10 total & 6 in FB.
Mtn West should pull an ACC and go for the death blow, grabbing SJSU & Utah St.

They'd still have enough teams to stand as a non-FB conference, but without FB, travel costs might peel off a team or two. They should beg BYU to come back -- even as a non-FB school.

Folks at Montana have gotten cheering that they didnt commit to going I-A to this mess.

 

[Vowelguy]

The La Tech / C-USA thing is a no-brainer.

Not a no-brainer for the CUSA. What does LT bring to the table? Decent athletics, but talk about being from the boonies. Some of their bigger games have to be held 70 miles away in the metropolis of Shreveport.

I think I'd take Georgia St or Charlotte over LTech.

 

[UConnDan97]

Not a no-brainer for the CUSA. What does LT bring to the table? Decent athletics, but talk about being from the boonies. Some of their bigger games have to be held 70 miles away in the metropolis of Shreveport.

I think I'd take Georgia St or Charlotte over LTech.

We are talking about a team that went 8-5, beat Ole Miss by 20 points, and beat Fresno State by 20 points. They ended up losing to TCU in their bowl game by a touchdown. Now I'm not saying they are the next LSU, but what I'm saying is that they are a football team on par with many in C-USA, and they would make good regional rivalries with teams like Southern Miss, UAB, Tulane, and Rice. And La Tech would certainly love to play some games where they could use a bus.

So yeah, that's a no-brainer to me. I know they aren't the NYC market, but C-USA's requirements for increasing tv revenue are not quite a BCS conference's requirements.

 

[Vowelguy]

We are talking about a team that went 8-5, beat Ole Miss by 20 points, and beat Fresno State by 20 points. They ended up losing to TCU in their bowl game by a touchdown. Now I'm not saying they are the next LSU, but what I'm saying is that they are a football team on par with many in C-USA,

And your basing this on one season?
Since 1980, they've been to 4 bowl games. They are hardly a mid-major power.

 

[Dann]

there needs to be 2 leagues.
a Western Ath Conf and a Southern Ath Conf. no merger.

Any school north/west of texas that doesn't get a MBE invite goes into the WAC. Any school in SEC territory that isn't in a league above the NBE should join forces with CUSA.

NBE:
UConn/Ruty/Tem/Cincy/USF/UCF/Navy/Lville
UH/SMU/SDSU/BSU//BYU/UNLV/Memphis

WAC:
Idaho/SJ/UNR/Hawaii/NM/NMst/Cst/Wy/Ust/UTEP/TS/Fresno/Tulsa

SAC:
NT/UTSA/Rice/Arkst/LaTech/ULM/Tulane/LL/WK/Smiss
UAB/SouthAL/MT/ECU/App/GAst/FIU/FAU/Mar/Troy

Anyway the point is, if your stuck in one of those leagues, its like a WAC in the SAC.

 

[UConnDan97]

And your basing this on one season?
Since 1980, they've been to 4 bowl games. They are hardly a mid-major power.

Who said they were a mid-major power? I just said that La Tech joining the C-USA was a no-brainer. There is no bashing here. It certainly makes sense for them, and it makes sense for C-USA. And the years before last year weren't too bad either, since they beat Mississippi State like 3 years ago, and I think they went to a bowl game about 2 or 3 years ago.

I guess I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what your point is. Are you saying that C-USA minus Houston, SMU, UCF, and Memphis is now too good for La Tech? Are you saying La Tech isn't good enough to be in a conference with Rice and UAB?? Let me know why you think there's a problem with my initial statement, so that I fully understand why you think it's so off the mark.