jlog3000

14 minutes ago, McCall said:

You assigned the expansion teams conferences/divisions without having cities selected. Las Vegas, Sacramento and Phoenix are all in play for the 31st and 32nd teams and if two of them were selected, it would push a Western team, geographically being St. Louis or Minnesota, into the East.

Let's see how would you realign things, based on my model.

With San Diego being the MLS's 30th franchise, effective the 2025 season, I wonder if the league would somehow apply divisions for both East & West Conferences, to reduce travel expenses and what not. But it would make a bit more sense once the league hits to 32 teams; because originally it wouldn't fit as it was originally predicted, according to this post from Reddit about 7-8 years ago:

Instead, the teams that joined alongside Atlanta United FC, Minnesota United FC, Los Angeles FC and Inter Miami FC were Nashville SC, FC Cincinnati, Austin FC and Charlotte FC; with St. Louis FC (this season) and San Diego FC (in 2025) will follow suit. While the Carolina Railhawks, the Sacramento Republic, the San Antonio Scorpions and the Indy Eleven didn't make it and were left out.

With that being said, the MLS might look like this:

MLS East:

* Northeast - Atlantic : DC United, Philadelphia, NY Red Bulls, New York City FC

* Northeast - New England: New England, CF Montreal, Toronto FC, <expansion>

* Central - Great Lakes: Nashville SC, FC Cincinnati, Chicago, Columbus

* Central - Southeast: Atlanta United, Charlotte FC, Inter Miami, Orlando City SC

MLS West:

* Frontier - Plains: Colorado, St. Louis, Sporting KC, Minnesota United

* Frontier - Sun Belt: Austin FC, Houston, FC Dallas, <expansion>

* Pacific - Northwest: Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, Real Salt Lake

* Pacific - Southwest: LA Galaxy, Los Angeles FC, San Jose, San Diego

Each team would face everyone (being 31 games), and another 3 within same section for a total of 34 games.

Thoughts?

With San Diego having a franchise to be the MLS's #30 team, I think that it will be very interesting once it joins the league. However, what concerns me a bit is the scheduling and conference format. I thin that both the MLS East and the MLS West must grouped their 15 teams into 3 divisions of 5 teams each, obviously based on geographic approximation.

The issue is that each team plays like 30 or so regular season games. This season is 34. One solution would be that a few games need to expand:

Like each team faces 4 teams of its own division twice, then face 5 teams of other division twice and face 5 teams of other 2nd division once (with inter-division play switching each year) and face 15 teams of other conference once. That would be a total of 38 games (oddly enough thats the same amount of games used on other pro soccer leagues of other countries, only that in those leagues they each got 20 teams and each of those face the other 19 twice [home and road alike]).

2 hours ago, Geoff said:

Just need 8 teams to break the GOR. I think the best bet or smartest move is for Louisville to realize they're better off in the Big XII with old rivals like Cinci, WVU, and maybe even Memphis than whatever the hell the ACC is going to be when the big names leave or an ACC with uneven distribution. Louisville doesn't see itself as a basketball school. It's a basketball and football school. Football just doesn't have the consistency to merit the amount of money in uneven distribution for it to be a basketball and football school. 

Agreed. Plus, with Houston also joining by, another former L'Ville rival from the C-USA days (as well as Cincy).

But imagine if Louisville had joined the Big XII instead of West Virginia back 11 years ago, with WVU joining the ACC a bit later. I wonder if either program would had success or blunders along the way. Oddly enough, if Maryland hadn't even like decided to leave the ACC, Rutgers would had been also consider joining in the ACC too instead of the Big TEN, alongside WVU. That would set a mini-cycle rivalry between those schools and had might given the ACC 16 teams (in a football perspective, excluding #17 in Notre Dame, who's just the non-football full-member).

A bit off-topic from FBS stuff, here's some unexpected but projected FCS stuff:

https://ovcsports.com/news/2023/5/12/general-western-illinois-university-to-join-the-ovc-in-2023-24.aspx

What would be the future now for the Summit, now that all of its members (except Denver and Oral Roberts) are technically in the Upper Midwest or West North Central states (or in geographic terms, the Great Plains)?

And what would be the future for the OVC, as it might be a full member school (that can sponsor football) might bring the conference back to 12 members (and possibly 7 or 8 for the autobid qualifyer for a football title in conference-play)?

Guess that's now official. After the news with St. Francis (NY) discontinuing its entire athletics program, the pick was obvious. Although the NEC still has time to potentially expand within a few years to grow back its membership amount.

19 minutes ago, GriffinM6 said:

Should've called it the WAC-SUN.

That would been something at least, Like how the MVFC is, separately from the MVC, but also includes Summit schools for one sport (being football).

Anyone has yet seen this?

https://asunsports.org/sports/fball/2022-23/releases/20230417066y7o

What a way to name a single-sport only conference with "athletic" on it. How would that make sense, knowing that it will only be a football-sponsoring league with no other sports being added for men and/or women alike? It would be logical if it's called the "United Football Conference".

P.S.: Good job WAC & A-Sun. *facepalms*

13 minutes ago, Burmy said:

I think Montana being one of these states is the key reason why the Griz never moved up to FBS in their program's juggernaut days (because no conference was willing to also take Montana State).

Same could possibly be said for both Dakota states with the 4 major public Dakota schools (despite some of them having recent success, with NDSU football as a prime example), or even Idaho, hence the UofI had to downgrade back to the FCS.

But back to Montana, at one point, the schools from that state (as well as Idaho) played with the schools in the Pacific Northwest (mostly who are now in the Pac-12), and competed at one time within the same conference. Times had changed since the 1960s

5 minutes ago, Burmy said:

St. Cloud State dropped football in 2019...I wonder what it would take for them to revive it?

Perhaps Minnesota State would work as the other school to move up? 

Darn, I almost forgot about that in regards with St. Cloud State; which reminded me of Omaha, who unfortunately had to give up the sport they got success in its history in order to move upto D-I from D-II. But at least Minnesota-Duluth from the D-II NSIC would fit the SL footprint if given the chance for an invitation to join, as that conference is leaning a bit Upper Midwest in a geographic footprint standpoint, despite having exclaves (or enclaves, depending on how it's being taken) with Western Illinois, Oral Roberts and Denver.

Minnesota State would also be a solid choice, as they compete in the NSIC as well; plus their hockey team is in the CCHA, also they sponsor football. And speaking of other similar schools that fit similarly, maybe Bemidji State too.

But if that were the case (although it might be unlikely), maybe the Summit could also absorb the CCHA, which has St. Thomas (a current full member of the Summit) as a few other MAC schools like Bowling Green to join with Western Michigan and Miami-Ohio, and the remaining four schools who play in the D-II GLIAC for other sports (which all would make hockey affiliates under the SL banner), that way it might form a super-conference in D-I hockey.

If that would be the plan indeed, then good luck to 'both sides' for 'only that sport', despite the fact that I'm personally not a fan of single sport-only conferences (S.S.O.C.'s) and all for mainstream clout. Hence also the OVC/Big South "partnership".

On a sidenote, there are rumors or sources that the Summit League might absorb the NCHC to sponsor ice hockey as a conference sport, as that S.S.O.C. has 3 schools who are SL full members (Denver, Nebraska-Omaha... I mean Omaha, and North Dakota).

Although that is all and dandy, assuming that it will be expected to happen at some point, but it would make sense if the Summit would add 2 more full members that could benefit football and hockey (those being Minnesota-Duluth and St. Cloud State, as both are in D-II for other sports that could possible to move upto D-I for their entire programs while remaining in D-I for hockey).

If it was only done a bit sooner than later by the time UTA had gotten the invite to re-join back to the WAC, then the conference would had been a bit more than alright to sponsor FCS football due to having over 6 or 7 full members that would sponsor the sport (even after UTRGV would have its program debut its season), although it would too little too late. However, it might work for the "partnership" of the WAC/A-Sun group (or MVFC 2.0).

Only time can tell. Realistically both Central Washington and Western Oregon would remain in D-II. However, they have the chance to move upto D-I, if both schools could get funds to invest on their athletic facilities. As they are the only two schools in the D-II ranks within the Pacific Northwest that sponsor the sport of football (as they play in the GNAC for other sports), while the other peer schools from that same conference have dropped the sport over time.

Well I'll be damned. I mean, I bet no one expected that to happen, and they got an invitation to re-join the American Midwest Conference a few months ago after spending 2 seasons (including this school year) in the Independent ranks (i.e.: Continental or AII) when they re-joined the NAIA from the NCAA D-III ranks.

But in general, that's another school who will either discontinue its athletics program or close entirely altogether in the past few weeks, regardless of college sports level; like how St. Francis (NY) just somehow announced to remove its athletics program, leaving another blow to the D-I NEC.

9 minutes ago, Cujo said:

 

They're getting in regardless of next weekend. 

 

1) The Aztecs consistently good.

 

2) The Pac-12 will be in dire need of a SoCal school.

Unfortunately, there aren't any other SoCal schools within D-I (let alone within the FBS). The other viable option for the Pac-12 to get is Fresno State, although that school is in CenCel (Central California), like close to Stanford and UCal.

So that means St. Francis (NY) pulled a Lincoln Christian (a former NAIA/NCCAA school), meaning that they just dropped/discontinued its entire athletics program, but is keeping the school alive; which would mean that St. Francis would still remain active (hence the campus moving and expansion). Recently Trinity International (an NAIA school) did it similarly too.

42 minutes ago, Seadragon76 said:

 

Yes it is and man, does it hurt for the NEC. To think, less then 24 hours ago, Fairleigh Dickinson was the toast of the college basketball world despite losing to Florida Atlantic.

 

What this does is put the league down to eight members for the foreseeable future... which is not a bad thing, mind you. In Basketball, you get an 8 team league. Football still has their 8 teams (7 full members and Duquesne). 

True, and good point. As long as the minimum amount of schools for a conference to promote and compete is 8 in order to maintain the automatic bids for their sponsored sports, it seems that way.

And if that is official, will the NEC rebound back with new expansion members or wait til their new callups to become full D-I members for that (i.e.: Stonehill, who just joined during this school year), or even in a worse case scenario (which is having upto 8 members and staying that way forever without expanding at all, shades of the MEAC in that route)?

Talk about a shocker that was unexpected. Saint Francis (N.Y.) is a D-I school right? And if so, that would be another blow for the NEC.

1 minute ago, heavybass said:

Mountain West to go after the Bison and the Jackrabbits?

That might be possible. And after that, the next to be in line would be either the USD Coyotes & the UND Fighting Hawks; or the Montana Grizzlies & the Montana St. Bobcats?

5 hours ago, WestCoastBias said:

 

I'm with @jlog3000 here. I was always of the belief that basketball was the sport that determined the conference where the rest of your sports played and that football was able to do it's own thing basically. Unless your basketball conference didn't sponsor one of your sports then all your sports played there. That could be more like a hand shake agreement than an actual rule though idk.

 

Whatever the case, Gonzaga would be added for all sports to the Big 12. The WCC definitely wouldn't let their biggest money maker leave while the rest of Gonzaga's sports stayed with them. From The Athletic: "Indications are that Gonzaga would want any move to be an all-sports deal, not just for basketball."

 

At least someone got my point to an extent. I thank you @WestCoastBias for that.

Plus with the Notre Dame example on one of my prior posts, it was due to the reference of basketball, but in their 2nd stint at the MCC/Horizon (before moving almost all of its sports to the Big East in the 1995-96 school year), almost every sport the program sponsored was part of that except for men's basketball and football. The only thing I wanted to clarify was that football was still independent at that time (like how they are today), hence I didn't include it.

The context in question was about basketball, which is a main priority for revenue and a key factor as a minimum requirement, with football being a close second (unless that school doesn't sponsor that sport). Also at least it's not like the NAIA and lower organizations, where institutions are full members whose sports that are possible for the school to sponsor in an athletic conference have neither football or basketball or both, or even.

Heck, a rare few exceptions exist in the NCAA, with those that have no basketball but have other Olympic sports, for instance: Massachusetts Maritime (also sponsors football); or a women's-only college like Simmons (Mass.) who has no basketball (whose final season was in the 2018-19 season).

18 minutes ago, sportsfan7 said:

This is basically right with a few exceptions. VMI and The Citadel don't sponsor women's basketball (although they do sponsor other women's sports), Morehead State and Presbyterian play football in the non-scholarship Pioneer despite the OVC and Big South (respectively) sponsoring football, and despite the Patriot League sponsoring football Army plays as an FBS independent and Navy in the American. But yes, if a school plays basketball in a conference then it traditionally hosts as many of its teams there as it can.

True, but don't you guys think that it's irrelevant to have a school to compete in basketball (either men's alone or women's alone or both alike) for one conference as an affiliate, while having the rest of the other sports in its primary home conference?

It's like almost with the case of Notre Dame's 2nd stint in the MCC (now the Horizon League) as a full member plus women's basketball, while it's men's basketball team was a D-I Independent (proverbially speaking that being on another conference).

20 minutes ago, McCall said:

Yes. They’re not big enough any other sport to leave the more regional WCC.

Then basically should they selfishly and entitlely get their way, it would mean that Gonzaga will be the first school to be an associate or affiliate member for only that sport. Because in a normal, common sensical world, it's unheard of for an institution to have basketball only on one conference while remaining as a "full non-football member" on its primary home conference for other sports. Bottom line.

And to my understanding, for a member institution to join an athletic conference as its primary home, it must have both men's and women's basketball as its main priority (plus football if that conference also sponsors it), along with a few less revenue Olympic sports for each gender.

4 minutes ago, McCall said:

Gonzaga’s only being looked at for basketball.

But for basketball only? Not counting its other Olympic sports?

25 minutes ago, McCall said:

Here's how I can see it happening, eventually, in the end:

1. Four Corner Schools (Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah) to the Big 12

2. Oregon, Washington, Stanford to the Big Ten

3. Oregon State, Washington State to the Mountain West. OR...

4. They stay in the Pac-12 (with California, who I could see ending up in the Big 12) and add San Diego State, Fresno State, UNLV, Nevada and maybe Boise State (and potentially others to reach 10-12 teams)  to form a new, non-P5 conference of the P5-Pac-12 leftovers and top schools from the Mountain West (which adds North Dakota State and South Dakota State.) If any of these schools become appealing for P5 expansion, they'd eventually end up in the Big 12.

Those are good predictions. And a bit off-topic, although I know it's speculation at this moment, but do you see Gonzaga join the Big XII as an all-sports member (except football)? Also would other Dakota schools (North Dakota and South Dakota) or both Montana schools to follow suit to join alongside North Dakota State and South Dakota State?

This is a bit off-topic from the major college sports conferences; but I heard from some links or sources that there might be serious talk between mid-major powerhouse school Gonzaga and the Big XII. So I was wondering, should the Zaggin' Bulldogs get an official invitation to join that conference, would it be ideal for the Big XII to get another non-football school similar to Gonzaga's caliber (regardless of whether or not their current men's basketball head coach eventually leaving)? Because in my opinion, having an odd number of member schools just seems not the ideal move.

And if Gonzaga does 'move up the ladder', will the WCC plan to find its replacement (and if so, which school(s) would fit there to replace them (including BYU) in any standpoint)? If it's for major city market purposes, would it be Seattle or Denver?