(01-01-2015 06:48 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 06:12 PM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 05:14 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 04:49 PM)gassman Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 09:43 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Now is not the time to be cheap. Playing FBS football costs money, and it will only get more expensive. Every current C-USA member knew that when they joined. I don't believe C-USA programs will find safety in larger numbers. I don't believe that is the answer. These unneeded extra programs you want to add don't work on large athletic budgets, and might have a very hard time surviving the increasing costs of playing FBS football. Every current C-USA program just needs to raise their game, continue improving on the field, and increasing fan support in their regions. Adding more than one strategically placed strong program in the west and bloating the conference, isn't the solution. Plus, the western division is where we will be short a team. There is no reason for eastern schools to try and muscle the west to add more eastern teams.

Cutting costs is not the same thing as being cheap. If adding three quality programs while at the same time cutting costs is being cheap I don't understand what being cheap means.

If the 3 programs are of enough quality, than it isn't being cheap, it would be strengthening the conference. I just don't see 3 truly quality programs out there right now, which is why I'm not in favor of expanding to 16. If the 3 aren't all that great, than it wouldn't really improve the strength of C-USA. It would just be adding to create more convenience, which I don't believe helps to improve our product on the field. That is why I view it as being cheap. Which 3 do you endorse? Maybe we will agree that they would be good for C-USA.

Given this criteria North Texas would not have made the original cut into Conf USA.North Texas was suffering from a decade of losing.North Texas, was added because of its market,not because it was a quality winning program.Careful how you re create the Conf USA narrative.

Markets are always part of the equation. Since C-USA's media deal is up, I'd say it is a very important part of this equation.

As far as North Texas goes... We generate more interest the Dallas market for C-USA than SMU does for the AAC. In fact, I wouldn't knock North Texas too much. Over our decade of losing, we've still gone 2-1 against SMU, including our 43-6 beat down of SMU this season. Also, North Texas earned C-USA a New Years Day bowl win over the MWC, so it isn't like we've been doormats since getting our spot.

You know if the AAC lost SMU, they'd be down in DFW wanting North Texas, because there is no way the AAC would give up the Dallas market.

I find the bolded key and interesting. Both CUSA and the AAC have contracts with CBSSN who chose to air North Texas (4-8) once and SMU (1-11) six times in 2014. It's obvious how they valued the two under performing teams.

I think both are good for their conferences and vice versa. As Fox moves more games onto their regionals, strong local support makes good business sense. Also, assuming North Texas recruits locally/regionally, it's a win for the school as well.

SMU, as a private school, recruits nationally and covets that kind of exposure. However, it has to make sense from the TV side as well. It must as we saw in 2014 with arguably the worst team in FBS continuously selected for national broadcasts over other CBSSN G5 schools (MWC/CUSA/AAC). If SMU can keep a national profile, it's a win for the conference (with other regional/national brands in revenue sports) and the school.

I don't see SMU/UNT as overlapping or mutually exclusive. Both can thrive and contribute to their own goals and bring value to their respective conferences. Really, the only readily visible commonality (as an outsider) is location. I guess I just don't see where the success of one hurts the other...from a university (students) or conference (regional vs. national) perspective.