(04-02-2014 12:57 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/...ng_to.html

Quote:Mackin said. "We have to go through the league's office, a conference representative, to make sure every game we schedule that the conference looks at that and approves that. Starting this next year, if you don't adhere to that, there will be a penalty. Revenue will be taken away."

I like the spirit of this but this is not the answer. That takes away from the autonomy of the individual programs and ignores the fact that many schools have serious issues with scheduling. UTEP, Tulsa, Charlotte, etc. don't have the same scheduling issues and financial problems that USM has. One issue I can think of that may be problematic is the scheduling of non-D1 games: Our athletic department would prefer scheduling two NAIA teams to two lower D1 teams that will wreck our RPI. Philosophically, a lot of other AD's may not agree with this strategy.

Look, I will blame Banowsky for just about everything wrong with this conference. This is not something I put on him, though.

(04-02-2014 10:43 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 09:15 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  So he's saying the same thing McGillis said, but McGillis was "overstepping his bounds" (according to some ODU and UAB tools) when saying the Conference had to show some leadership in this regard?

FIFY

Once again you don't have a clue. This isn't the commissioner or conference scheduling games for USM. That is what plenty of USM and La Tech fans wanted--the conference to do their AD's job. Instead it's telling their crap athletic department to not schedule a bunch of garbage teams and be surprised when they get left out of the tournament again.

I'm glad you're happy about it. It's a nice middle ground.

(04-03-2014 09:41 AM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 10:43 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 09:15 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  So he's saying the same thing McGillis said, but McGillis was "overstepping his bounds" (according to some ODU and UAB tools) when saying the Conference had to show some leadership in this regard?

FIFY

Once again you don't have a clue. This isn't the commissioner or conference scheduling games for USM. That is what plenty of USM and La Tech fans wanted--the conference to do their AD's job. Instead it's telling their crap athletic department to not schedule a bunch of garbage teams and be surprised when they get left out of the tournament again.

I'm glad you're happy about it. It's a nice middle ground.

I don't think McGillis and his counterpart can be serious. If they are, I'm scared.

(04-03-2014 09:36 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 08:34 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 08:19 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 10:15 PM)AtlantaEagle Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 09:57 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  Overstepping his bounds? We pay that MFs salary.

I don't think Banowsky is the problem here. You don't fire the captain of a garbage scow for failing to provide a luxury cruise. But nobody overstepped anything. BB serves at our pleasure.

My hope is that this is leading to something more than just a change in commissioner. We're seeing a coalition of older schools with strong basketball teams emerge here, and they're in a tight geographic formation: UAB, Southern Miss, LA Tech. The exit fee balances are dwindling every day. If there is an airport meeting, the question is "who else gets included"? Rice, ULL, and Arkansas State seem like obvious candidates. Rice is a reach, perhaps, as are most of the Texas schools, but Rice probably fits in better with the rest of the airport group than they do with the big urban commuter schools. The overall goal is to pluck the heart out of CUSA and build a stable league, and a geographically centered league, that isn't divided between the schools trying to be the next UCF and their victims.

ULL, Ark. State? Ummm...I think we need to stay put if that's the alternative.
Be a heck of a lot cheaper to just get a new commissioner who really wants the conference to thrive, rather than just be a placeholder.

I could be wrong about Arkansas State.

ULL is exploding in significance right now. The models don't predict it, but I'm in South Louisiana and I see it.

If we do what I'm suggesting, we rip the geographic core out of CUSA. What would be left behind would be untenable. The airport meeting would signal the end of the horrible era we've just lived through, in which any stupid commuter school in a big city can just play USM for a few years and then run off to a real conference. Ending that trend instead of just being a little ***** about it is important. Already, people on EaglePost.net are talking about UTSA passing us, and on the AAC board they're all horny for OD ******* U. **** all that noise and **** those schools. They're public DeVrys.

And there's no value in staying put. We've won CUSA championships in every major sport and they don't do anything. They're like Mardi Gras doubloons.

Interesting concept. You want to form a new conference from core C-USA schools and core SBC schools. That could conceivably work but it won't put you in a higher position than you are now. Charlotte, ODU, Marshall and the Florida and Texas schools would be outside that core. Is this the turtle's head retreating into it's shell for safety or what? IMHO the goal for USM should be to eventually rejoin Memphis in a conference, whatever that is and however long that takes. If your goals are simply to contract your conference geographically then it doesn't sound like growth to me.

My understanding is that the AAC is a permanent impossibility. Those teams played us for 15-20 years. We added nothing TV-wise and had a nasty tendency to spoil their dream seasons.

At the beginning of CUSA, there were fewer alternatives to us, and travel costs were a bigger part of any given school's athletic budget. We had that same basic location advantage that propelled FSU "to the top". So we made sense for CUSA 1.0, even though Louisville in particular really wanted no part of us. We also had a more dynamic leadership team than we've had since (although the jury's still out on the current team).

This narrative goes a long way toward explaining why a whole new conference was formed basically just to get rid of us... and UAB, who never quite "popped" like they seemed poised to do at one time.

So, once you give up on the AAC, and acknowledge that there's no value to being the Washington Generals for yet another round of UCFs, there's really not much alternative to the airport meeting scenario. I'd like to see UTEP included, but you've probably got at least two places you'd rather be (MWC/CUSA).

I would think that if any schools are contemplating a breakaway conference, they will wait to see how the conference performs in FB and MBB next year and then see what the tv partners have to say at negotiation time, which is coming soon. One of those issues may affect the other either in a positive or negative way. If it's all good and C-USA does well with the next media negotiations then we could possibly see a new level of exit fee agreed on that has some teeth and keeps everyone from going to another G5 conference. If not then what you describe might be in the cards down the road.

Exit fee should be $0 for USM and UAB. If that's not the case now, I fully expect McGillis to push for it.

Besides, isn't the exit fee contingent upon damage to the media contract or something like that? By that rule, you should pay us to leave.

A new, breakaway conference would need the NCAA to give them an auto-bid to the NCAA basketball tournament. They gave up an at-large bid to the AAC when they became a league. I don't see them taking away another at-large bid and giving an auto-bid to "X conference" filled with SBC and C-USA schools.

(04-03-2014 10:12 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  A new, breakaway conference would need the NCAA to give them an auto-bid to the NCAA basketball tournament. They gave up an at-large bid to the AAC when they became a league. I don't see them taking away another at-large bid and giving an auto-bid to "X conference" filled with SBC and C-USA schools.

If they take one away, it should be from the weakest conference.

Don't all conferences get an auto-bid?

(04-03-2014 10:14 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 10:12 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  A new, breakaway conference would need the NCAA to give them an auto-bid to the NCAA basketball tournament. They gave up an at-large bid to the AAC when they became a league. I don't see them taking away another at-large bid and giving an auto-bid to "X conference" filled with SBC and C-USA schools.

If they take one away, it should be from the weakest conference.

Don't all conferences get an auto-bid?

Yes.

(04-03-2014 10:14 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 10:14 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 10:12 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  A new, breakaway conference would need the NCAA to give them an auto-bid to the NCAA basketball tournament. They gave up an at-large bid to the AAC when they became a league. I don't see them taking away another at-large bid and giving an auto-bid to "X conference" filled with SBC and C-USA schools.

If they take one away, it should be from the weakest conference.

Don't all conferences get an auto-bid?

Yes.

So there's no issue then, right? They have to give automatic bids until there are 64 conferences.

(04-03-2014 10:14 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 10:12 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  A new, breakaway conference would need the NCAA to give them an auto-bid to the NCAA basketball tournament. They gave up an at-large bid to the AAC when they became a league. I don't see them taking away another at-large bid and giving an auto-bid to "X conference" filled with SBC and C-USA schools.

If they take one away, it should be from the weakest conference.

Don't all conferences get an auto-bid?

Yes, but there is no guarantee a new conference would.

There are already only a handful of at large bids going to teams outside the power conferences, so a new league would only make it even more difficult for quality teams that F up in their conference tournament to get a bid.

Personally, I wish we had more play-in games for teams from weak conferences.

I wish the champions from the bottom 10 conferences had to have play in games with each other. This would free up 5 more at large spots.

This will never pass for two reasons though. Those small conferences would get pissed off and fight it. Secondly, the teams from major conferences would then have to face tougher opponents in the first rounds, increasing their chances of being upset.

(04-03-2014 10:17 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 10:14 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 10:14 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 10:12 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  A new, breakaway conference would need the NCAA to give them an auto-bid to the NCAA basketball tournament. They gave up an at-large bid to the AAC when they became a league. I don't see them taking away another at-large bid and giving an auto-bid to "X conference" filled with SBC and C-USA schools.

If they take one away, it should be from the weakest conference.

Don't all conferences get an auto-bid?

Yes.

So there's no issue then, right? They have to give automatic bids until there are 64 conferences.

I don't believe they "have" to do anything. I think the NCAA has to recognize and accept them as a conference, as they did with the AAC, then they get an auto-bid.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you say, "OK we're a new conference give us our auto-bid to NCAA tournaments."

The league would have to be approved before actually becoming an NCAA Division 1 conference.

The bottom line for me is that the current conference structure is completely unacceptable to USM. I would rather drop football than play in this conference. Anyone who thinks CUSA can be tweaked or promoted into something that works for us is a fool. I don't want to think our AD is a fool. We'll see, though. The dude may just be making noise because he knows that our fans are pissed.

(04-03-2014 10:22 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  The bottom line for me is that the current conference structure is completely unacceptable to USM. I would rather drop football than play in this conference. Anyone who thinks CUSA can be tweaked or promoted into something that works for us is a fool. I don't want to think our AD is a fool. We'll see, though. The dude may just be making noise because he knows that our fans are pissed.

I'm not sure how you think a new conference comprised of C-USA and SBC teams will be better off for Southern Miss. Compared to the current C-USA comprised of C-USA and SBC teams with a dash of WAC and FCS.

(04-03-2014 10:26 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 10:22 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  The bottom line for me is that the current conference structure is completely unacceptable to USM. I would rather drop football than play in this conference. Anyone who thinks CUSA can be tweaked or promoted into something that works for us is a fool. I don't want to think our AD is a fool. We'll see, though. The dude may just be making noise because he knows that our fans are pissed.

I'm not sure how you think a new conference comprised of C-USA and SBC teams will be better off for Southern Miss than the current C-USA comprised of C-USA and SBC teams with a dash of WAC and FCS.

As you note, the conference I'm suggesting would draw from a variety of sources.

The mistake the AAC made in excluding USM is the same mistake CUSA made in excluding ULL. The same mistaken model of success was used.

USM has to do something or we will wither away in CUSA. Anything would be preferable. I hate this conference with a white-hot passion and I am far from alone.

(04-03-2014 10:26 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 10:22 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  The bottom line for me is that the current conference structure is completely unacceptable to USM. I would rather drop football than play in this conference. Anyone who thinks CUSA can be tweaked or promoted into something that works for us is a fool. I don't want to think our AD is a fool. We'll see, though. The dude may just be making noise because he knows that our fans are pissed.

I'm not sure how you think a new conference comprised of C-USA and SBC teams will be better off for Southern Miss. Compared to the current C-USA comprised of C-USA and SBC teams with a dash of WAC and FCS.

based on his constant reference to UCF I think he wants a conference where USM has the largest market and budget, essentially a smaller pond so they can be the biggest fish.

(04-03-2014 10:20 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 10:17 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 10:14 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 10:14 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 10:12 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  A new, breakaway conference would need the NCAA to give them an auto-bid to the NCAA basketball tournament. They gave up an at-large bid to the AAC when they became a league. I don't see them taking away another at-large bid and giving an auto-bid to "X conference" filled with SBC and C-USA schools.

If they take one away, it should be from the weakest conference.

Don't all conferences get an auto-bid?

Yes.

So there's no issue then, right? They have to give automatic bids until there are 64 conferences.

I don't believe they "have" to do anything. I think the NCAA has to recognize and accept them as a conference, as they did with the AAC, then they get an auto-bid.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you say, "OK we're a new conference give us our auto-bid to NCAA tournaments."

The league would have to be approved before actually becoming an NCAA Division 1 conference.

Technically, the AAC inherited all auto bids from the "old" big east. The AAC is a continuation of that entity as far as the NCAA is concerned. The "new" big east had to go through the process of applying for autobids for their sports.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketba...new-name-2

On another note, I'm not sure a contracted conference would pay off for USM all things considered.

(04-03-2014 10:33 AM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 10:26 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 10:22 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  The bottom line for me is that the current conference structure is completely unacceptable to USM. I would rather drop football than play in this conference. Anyone who thinks CUSA can be tweaked or promoted into something that works for us is a fool. I don't want to think our AD is a fool. We'll see, though. The dude may just be making noise because he knows that our fans are pissed.

I'm not sure how you think a new conference comprised of C-USA and SBC teams will be better off for Southern Miss. Compared to the current C-USA comprised of C-USA and SBC teams with a dash of WAC and FCS.

based on his constant reference to UCF I think he wants a conference where USM has the largest market and budget, essentially a smaller pond so they can be the biggest fish.

USM has never been in the situation you describe and never will be.

I want USM to not be in CUSA. Period, story complete. CUSA has been the death of USM. Schools like yours trick us into being an extra in your story. We must find an alternative or die trying.

(04-03-2014 08:29 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  Anyone else think Tom Jurich would be a good conference commissioner?

I am hardly qualified to come with names, but those that can replace.....should do it soon.

It would be nice to see cusa hire someone with a mission that isn't status quo.

(04-03-2014 10:40 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 10:33 AM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 10:26 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 10:22 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  The bottom line for me is that the current conference structure is completely unacceptable to USM. I would rather drop football than play in this conference. Anyone who thinks CUSA can be tweaked or promoted into something that works for us is a fool. I don't want to think our AD is a fool. We'll see, though. The dude may just be making noise because he knows that our fans are pissed.

I'm not sure how you think a new conference comprised of C-USA and SBC teams will be better off for Southern Miss. Compared to the current C-USA comprised of C-USA and SBC teams with a dash of WAC and FCS.

based on his constant reference to UCF I think he wants a conference where USM has the largest market and budget, essentially a smaller pond so they can be the biggest fish.

USM has never been in the situation you describe and never will be.

I want USM to not be in CUSA. Period, story complete. CUSA has been the death of USM. Schools like yours trick us into being an extra in your story. We must find an alternative or die trying.

You claimed CUSA 1.0 and 2.0 never wanted to be associated with USM and bailed as soon as they could. By your logic, maybe you should look at what has been a constant in CUSA 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 for the problem...

(04-03-2014 10:48 AM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 10:40 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 10:33 AM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 10:26 AM)MUsince96 Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 10:22 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  The bottom line for me is that the current conference structure is completely unacceptable to USM. I would rather drop football than play in this conference. Anyone who thinks CUSA can be tweaked or promoted into something that works for us is a fool. I don't want to think our AD is a fool. We'll see, though. The dude may just be making noise because he knows that our fans are pissed.

I'm not sure how you think a new conference comprised of C-USA and SBC teams will be better off for Southern Miss. Compared to the current C-USA comprised of C-USA and SBC teams with a dash of WAC and FCS.

based on his constant reference to UCF I think he wants a conference where USM has the largest market and budget, essentially a smaller pond so they can be the biggest fish.

USM has never been in the situation you describe and never will be.

I want USM to not be in CUSA. Period, story complete. CUSA has been the death of USM. Schools like yours trick us into being an extra in your story. We must find an alternative or die trying.

You claimed CUSA 1.0 and 2.0 never wanted to be associated with USM and bailed as soon as they could. By your logic, maybe you should look at what has been a constant in CUSA 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 for the problem...

I think that Bill McGillis needs to think about those things, not me. But yeah... that's a fair statement.