(01-01-2015 04:58 PM)gassman Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 03:26 PM)ARSTATEFAN1986 Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 03:01 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 02:32 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 02:01 PM)baruna falls Wrote:  I see no difference between the Belt and Conf USA.The sxhools I n these two leagues are essentialy the same in almost every category.A merger between the two makes financial sense.Yes,there was a difference 3 years ago but not anymore.I would think that schools like North Texas,MT and WKU,would lije to renew old rivalries from the Belt.Plus,Conf USA gets to partner with ESPN,something they desperately neef to happen.

What is the downsize of such a full merger?

Then there is no difference between the Sun Belt, CUSA and the AAC. Let's shuffle these three conferences to save $$$ like you said what is the downside? These conferences were different 3 years ago but not anymore. Looking at RPI in football CUSA and the AAC were almost identical this season and the Sun Belt was the best G5 last year. None of the conferences are great in basketball this season.

Or maybe you are blind.

CUSA football was comparable to the AAC this year and with a LOT of young programs. The potential to be the best G5 football conference is certainly there.

The AAC is more focused on the East Coast and with private schools. Obviously Rice is still in CUSA and so is FIU. CUSA is more focused in the Mid South/South Central region.

I don't believe too many schools at this point would rather be in the AAC over CUSA. Rice and FIU definitely. I'm not sure if UTEP would want to leave UTSA and UNT. Marshall maybe. Southern Miss I doubt it if Memphis were to go to the XII. ODU probably since they are on the East Coast.

Two years ago, movement from CUSA to AAC was probably a no brainer but now the future in the AAC doesn't look that bright.

"I don't believe too many schools at this point would rather be in the AAC over CUSA. Rice and FIU definitely. I'm not sure if UTEP would want to leave UTSA and UNT. Marshall maybe. Southern Miss I doubt it if Memphis were to go to the XII. ODU probably since they are on the East Coast.

Two years ago, movement from CUSA to AAC was probably a no brainer but now the future in the AAC doesn't look that bright."

Now this is unbelievablly funny. There is no way they are comparable.

CUSA, MAC and the Sun Belt are comparable for sure. Now if Memphis and Cincinnati leaves for the Big 12 and Connecticut leaves...then it is still going to get whichever CUSA team it wants...but it might go UMASS, NIU and Ohio instead.

If those three leave then what's the point in moving to the AAC. None of the other schools move the needle.

Right. If you are a school like LT, USM, WKU, MTSU as to what is going to be a better fit in 20 years time CUSA or the AAC, you probably are making the right choice with CUSA.

And its completely possible that if the AAC gets massively raided, losing 6-8 schools that CUSA could pick up a few left behinds.....Tulsa, Tulane, ECU, Temple.

XII (Cincinnati, Memphis)
ACC (UCF, USF)
BE (UConn)
MWC (Houston, SMU)

CUSA going to 16 right now might not make as much sense because the AAC could implode. The implosion could include some horsetrading for schools w/o penalty to get back to 12 members.

(01-01-2015 04:58 PM)gassman Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 03:26 PM)ARSTATEFAN1986 Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 03:01 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 02:32 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 02:01 PM)baruna falls Wrote:  I see no difference between the Belt and Conf USA.The sxhools I n these two leagues are essentialy the same in almost every category.A merger between the two makes financial sense.Yes,there was a difference 3 years ago but not anymore.I would think that schools like North Texas,MT and WKU,would lije to renew old rivalries from the Belt.Plus,Conf USA gets to partner with ESPN,something they desperately neef to happen.

What is the downsize of such a full merger?

Then there is no difference between the Sun Belt, CUSA and the AAC. Let's shuffle these three conferences to save $$$ like you said what is the downside? These conferences were different 3 years ago but not anymore. Looking at RPI in football CUSA and the AAC were almost identical this season and the Sun Belt was the best G5 last year. None of the conferences are great in basketball this season.

Or maybe you are blind.

CUSA football was comparable to the AAC this year and with a LOT of young programs. The potential to be the best G5 football conference is certainly there.

The AAC is more focused on the East Coast and with private schools. Obviously Rice is still in CUSA and so is FIU. CUSA is more focused in the Mid South/South Central region.

I don't believe too many schools at this point would rather be in the AAC over CUSA. Rice and FIU definitely. I'm not sure if UTEP would want to leave UTSA and UNT. Marshall maybe. Southern Miss I doubt it if Memphis were to go to the XII. ODU probably since they are on the East Coast.

Two years ago, movement from CUSA to AAC was probably a no brainer but now the future in the AAC doesn't look that bright.

"I don't believe too many schools at this point would rather be in the AAC over CUSA. Rice and FIU definitely. I'm not sure if UTEP would want to leave UTSA and UNT. Marshall maybe. Southern Miss I doubt it if Memphis were to go to the XII. ODU probably since they are on the East Coast.

Two years ago, movement from CUSA to AAC was probably a no brainer but now the future in the AAC doesn't look that bright."

Now this is unbelievablly funny. There is no way they are comparable.

CUSA, MAC and the Sun Belt are comparable for sure. Now if Memphis and Cincinnati leaves for the Big 12 and Connecticut leaves...then it is still going to get whichever CUSA team it wants...but it might go UMASS, NIU and Ohio instead.

If those three leave then what's the point in moving to the AAC. None of the other schools move the needle.

Actually I was thinking of basketball only. ECU moves the needle in football and overall for Charlotte. We would love to be back in a conference with them again.

(01-01-2015 04:49 PM)gassman Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 09:43 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 12:40 AM)gassman Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 01:47 PM)49erlew Wrote:  The eastern coalition that killed the idea of going to 16 could very well be the reason it happens this time around.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least to see that coalition say, once again, that we're not going to expand without an eastern school. That means one to the east, two to the west. I don't think the money is a big issue in that. A sixteen-team conference allows each division to play within itself. In most sports, cross-country trips will be extremely limited if not done away with entirely. This alone could offset the cost of splitting that pie further.

Another thing that leads me to believe 16 is in play is the feeling that geographic conferences is the way of the future. The autobid rules (seven teams together for five years) that restrict new conferences are standing in the way.

Expanding to sixteen lays the foundation for an eventual split should the landscape play out in such a way that it becomes beneficial.

Agree 100%. Going to sixteen will cut costs massively on all the travel that has to be done by all the Olympic sports. That also insulates them a bit should the AAC lose teams and they pick off some CUSA schools.

No idea about the west but in the east Georgia Southern makes a lot of sense. Opens up a new state and they have strong football.

Out west maybe Arkansas State and South Alabama.

Whatever it takes reducing costs is going to be huge and may put more money in their pockets than they lose by dilution of the conference pay out. Plus the fact with additional inventory they will likely get more revenue.

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.

UTEP (easily beat by Utah St.) vs. Houston (plays Pitt tomorrow)
[/quote]

Hey, knock it off. UTEP was down 14-6 late in the 4th qtr. Easy my hairy butt.

(01-01-2015 05:13 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 04:58 PM)gassman Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 03:26 PM)ARSTATEFAN1986 Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 03:01 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 02:32 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  Then there is no difference between the Sun Belt, CUSA and the AAC. Let's shuffle these three conferences to save $$$ like you said what is the downside? These conferences were different 3 years ago but not anymore. Looking at RPI in football CUSA and the AAC were almost identical this season and the Sun Belt was the best G5 last year. None of the conferences are great in basketball this season.

Or maybe you are blind.

CUSA football was comparable to the AAC this year and with a LOT of young programs. The potential to be the best G5 football conference is certainly there.

The AAC is more focused on the East Coast and with private schools. Obviously Rice is still in CUSA and so is FIU. CUSA is more focused in the Mid South/South Central region.

I don't believe too many schools at this point would rather be in the AAC over CUSA. Rice and FIU definitely. I'm not sure if UTEP would want to leave UTSA and UNT. Marshall maybe. Southern Miss I doubt it if Memphis were to go to the XII. ODU probably since they are on the East Coast.

Two years ago, movement from CUSA to AAC was probably a no brainer but now the future in the AAC doesn't look that bright.

"I don't believe too many schools at this point would rather be in the AAC over CUSA. Rice and FIU definitely. I'm not sure if UTEP would want to leave UTSA and UNT. Marshall maybe. Southern Miss I doubt it if Memphis were to go to the XII. ODU probably since they are on the East Coast.

Two years ago, movement from CUSA to AAC was probably a no brainer but now the future in the AAC doesn't look that bright."

Now this is unbelievablly funny. There is no way they are comparable.

CUSA, MAC and the Sun Belt are comparable for sure. Now if Memphis and Cincinnati leaves for the Big 12 and Connecticut leaves...then it is still going to get whichever CUSA team it wants...but it might go UMASS, NIU and Ohio instead.

If those three leave then what's the point in moving to the AAC. None of the other schools move the needle.

Right. If you are a school like LT, USM, WKU, MTSU as to what is going to be a better fit in 20 years time CUSA or the AAC, you probably are making the right choice with CUSA.

And its completely possible that if the AAC gets massively raided, losing 6-8 schools that CUSA could pick up a few left behinds.....Tulsa, Tulane, ECU, Temple.

XII (Cincinnati, Memphis)
ACC (UCF, USF)
BE (UConn)
MWC (Houston, SMU)

CUSA going to 16 right now might not make as much sense because the AAC could implode. The implosion could include some horsetrading for schools w/o penalty to get back to 12 members.

UCF and USF will never get an invite to the ACC. The other adds you mention are more plausible.

(01-01-2015 05:15 PM)gassman Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 05:13 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 04:58 PM)gassman Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 03:26 PM)ARSTATEFAN1986 Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 03:01 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  CUSA football was comparable to the AAC this year and with a LOT of young programs. The potential to be the best G5 football conference is certainly there.

The AAC is more focused on the East Coast and with private schools. Obviously Rice is still in CUSA and so is FIU. CUSA is more focused in the Mid South/South Central region.

I don't believe too many schools at this point would rather be in the AAC over CUSA. Rice and FIU definitely. I'm not sure if UTEP would want to leave UTSA and UNT. Marshall maybe. Southern Miss I doubt it if Memphis were to go to the XII. ODU probably since they are on the East Coast.

Two years ago, movement from CUSA to AAC was probably a no brainer but now the future in the AAC doesn't look that bright.

"I don't believe too many schools at this point would rather be in the AAC over CUSA. Rice and FIU definitely. I'm not sure if UTEP would want to leave UTSA and UNT. Marshall maybe. Southern Miss I doubt it if Memphis were to go to the XII. ODU probably since they are on the East Coast.

Two years ago, movement from CUSA to AAC was probably a no brainer but now the future in the AAC doesn't look that bright."

Now this is unbelievablly funny. There is no way they are comparable.

CUSA, MAC and the Sun Belt are comparable for sure. Now if Memphis and Cincinnati leaves for the Big 12 and Connecticut leaves...then it is still going to get whichever CUSA team it wants...but it might go UMASS, NIU and Ohio instead.

If those three leave then what's the point in moving to the AAC. None of the other schools move the needle.

Right. If you are a school like LT, USM, WKU, MTSU as to what is going to be a better fit in 20 years time CUSA or the AAC, you probably are making the right choice with CUSA.

And its completely possible that if the AAC gets massively raided, losing 6-8 schools that CUSA could pick up a few left behinds.....Tulsa, Tulane, ECU, Temple.

XII (Cincinnati, Memphis)
ACC (UCF, USF)
BE (UConn)
MWC (Houston, SMU)

CUSA going to 16 right now might not make as much sense because the AAC could implode. The implosion could include some horsetrading for schools w/o penalty to get back to 12 members.

UCF and USF will never get an invite to the ACC. The other adds you mention are more plausible.

What if Florida State and UNC moved to the SEC?

Then it makes sense to double down in FL.

(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:  

(01-01-2015 12:40 AM)gassman Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 01:47 PM)49erlew Wrote:  The eastern coalition that killed the idea of going to 16 could very well be the reason it happens this time around.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least to see that coalition say, once again, that we're not going to expand without an eastern school. That means one to the east, two to the west. I don't think the money is a big issue in that. A sixteen-team conference allows each division to play within itself. In most sports, cross-country trips will be extremely limited if not done away with entirely. This alone could offset the cost of splitting that pie further.

Another thing that leads me to believe 16 is in play is the feeling that geographic conferences is the way of the future. The autobid rules (seven teams together for five years) that restrict new conferences are standing in the way.

Expanding to sixteen lays the foundation for an eventual split should the landscape play out in such a way that it becomes beneficial.

Agree 100%. Going to sixteen will cut costs massively on all the travel that has to be done by all the Olympic sports. That also insulates them a bit should the AAC lose teams and they pick off some CUSA schools.

No idea about the west but in the east Georgia Southern makes a lot of sense. Opens up a new state and they have strong football.

Out west maybe Arkansas State and South Alabama.

Whatever it takes reducing costs is going to be huge and may put more money in their pockets than they lose by dilution of the conference pay out. Plus the fact with additional inventory they will likely get more revenue.

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.

Georgia Southern for the east. Opens up Georgia, adds a good football school and I'm confident they can get their Olympics up to speed.

Plus I can drive there for games from Charlotte :-)

In the west I have no idea. I don't know enough about the teams out there.

(01-01-2015 05:14 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  UTEP (easily beat by Utah St.) vs. Houston (plays Pitt tomorrow)

Hey, knock it off. UTEP was down 14-6 late in the 4th qtr. Easy my hairy butt.
[/quote]

My apologies. You are correct. UTEP gave a valiant effort and represented the conference well. I'll change it.

(01-01-2015 05:17 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 05:15 PM)gassman Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 05:13 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 04:58 PM)gassman Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 03:26 PM)ARSTATEFAN1986 Wrote:  "I don't believe too many schools at this point would rather be in the AAC over CUSA. Rice and FIU definitely. I'm not sure if UTEP would want to leave UTSA and UNT. Marshall maybe. Southern Miss I doubt it if Memphis were to go to the XII. ODU probably since they are on the East Coast.

Two years ago, movement from CUSA to AAC was probably a no brainer but now the future in the AAC doesn't look that bright."

Now this is unbelievablly funny. There is no way they are comparable.

CUSA, MAC and the Sun Belt are comparable for sure. Now if Memphis and Cincinnati leaves for the Big 12 and Connecticut leaves...then it is still going to get whichever CUSA team it wants...but it might go UMASS, NIU and Ohio instead.

If those three leave then what's the point in moving to the AAC. None of the other schools move the needle.

Right. If you are a school like LT, USM, WKU, MTSU as to what is going to be a better fit in 20 years time CUSA or the AAC, you probably are making the right choice with CUSA.

And its completely possible that if the AAC gets massively raided, losing 6-8 schools that CUSA could pick up a few left behinds.....Tulsa, Tulane, ECU, Temple.

XII (Cincinnati, Memphis)
ACC (UCF, USF)
BE (UConn)
MWC (Houston, SMU)

CUSA going to 16 right now might not make as much sense because the AAC could implode. The implosion could include some horsetrading for schools w/o penalty to get back to 12 members.

UCF and USF will never get an invite to the ACC. The other adds you mention are more plausible.

What if Florida State and UNC moved to the SEC?

Then it makes sense to double down in FL.

Those moves you mention are never going to happen. UNC is never going to leave the ACC. And the blue bloods in the ACC will never allow a "directional school" into the club. Trust me I have lived in ACC country my whole life. Hell will freeze over before these things happen. Look at it this way. They look down their noses at ECU, who has whipped their buts quite frequently, what do you think they are going to feel about UCF and USF? Not happening.

(01-01-2015 02:32 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 02:01 PM)baruna falls Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 02:41 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 02:09 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-31-2014 01:47 PM)49erlew Wrote:  Another thing that leads me to believe 16 is in play is the feeling that geographic conferences is the way of the future. The autobid rules (seven teams together for five years) that restrict new conferences are standing in the way.

That's not the rule anymore. When the WAC was facing extermination, the rule was changed so that an existing conference just had to have seven D-I members (or six and one transitioning?).

That's why the (new) Big East had to get a waiver. Nobody objected to the waiver, since what really matters is tournament bids, and the Big East autobid isn't "stealing" a bid from a BCS conference bubble team.

That said, conditions change and rules change. CUSA could always go to 16 with the vague plan of splitting someday, maybe, when the time is right. But I think the time for reorganizing the CUSA and Suin Belt teams into south-eastern and south-central leagues was before CUSA and teh Sun Belt called up a half-dozen FCS teams.

Can everyone please quit with the Sun Belt-CUSA-AAC calls for reorg? Those leagues are 3 separate entities for a reason. Yes, geography plays a role in conference affiliation and formation but it is not the end all be all. Each of those conferences exists because other factors pertinent to conference affiliation are far more important (and cost effective) than aligning based on the "most logical" geography. Look no further than men's basketball for a prime reason why the conferences will never realign for purely geographic reasons.

I see no difference between the Belt and Conf USA.The sxhools I n these two leagues are essentialy the same in almost every category.A merger between the two makes financial sense.Yes,there was a difference 3 years ago but not anymore.I would think that schools like North Texas,MT and WKU,would lije to renew old rivalries from the Belt.Plus,Conf USA gets to partner with ESPN,something they desperately neef to happen.

What is the downsize of such a full merger?

Then there is no difference between the Sun Belt, CUSA and the AAC. Let's shuffle these three conferences to save $$$ like you said what is the downside? These conferences were different 3 years ago but not anymore. Looking at RPI in football CUSA and the AAC were almost identical this season and the Sun Belt was the best G5 last year. None of the conferences are great in basketball this season.

Or maybe you are blind.

The reality is few conference membership decisions are made in a calm and deliberative manner. They tend to happen in reaction.

But even if someone sat down and tore up the line-ups there wouldn't be wholesale change.

Assembling a conference requires balancing a number of seemingly contradictory things.

You want a wide footprint because you want your brand to have the maximum possible exposure and college fans for the most part have a team and don't care about anyone outside their conference. They usually only watch their league and if they don't have that as choice they will either choose the most relevant or most entertaining game available to them.

You have to balance that against a desire to keep as much of your revenue as possible in your hands spent as you desire to spend money for things you want rather than on travel. That pushes you toward proximity.

You want closer opponents because it is more likely your fans will care more the more you play regional opponents who are easier to dislike.

But you don't want opponents so close that they compete much with you for media attention, fans, and potential players.

CUSA has one instance of close but too close, FIU-FAU. But that pairing appeals because it permits travel saving if so desired and can scheduled to permit an annual trip to recruiting hotbed Florida on an annual basis.

The Sun Belt has one instance of close but too close, Arkansas State and Arkansas-Little Rock but UALR does not play football and AState fans tend to overwhelm the crowd when they meet at UALR.

AAC has one such pair in UCF and USF and the logic is similar to the FIU-FAU situation and in both pairs each is served by its own local media.

There aren't a lot of shifts that can take place among the three leagues where a team can move fit those principles of new territory plus being reasonable to travel to without being too close.

As long as exit fees continue to be part of conference membership, very few conferences will fold outright. Very rarely do a sufficient number of schools leave at the same time to prompt formal dissolution of a conference. If the entire membership of a conference found a better gig elsewhere, then it might dissolve - otherwise the school(s) left behind will gladly cash the exit fee checks, and then turn around and invite more members.

Why are so many people posting that FIU is a good for the AAC? I don't get it.

(01-01-2015 03:56 PM)SApuro Wrote:  AAC offers little to no upgrade over CUSA. All G5 conferences have a shot at the access. With the exit/entrance fees and minimal TV $ increase it doesn't make a lot of sense for most CUSA or MWC members.

Personally I don't like the AACs bowl line up. It heavily favors the eastern teams.

CUSA we have Heart of Dallas, New Mexico and New Orleans (most years). Not to mention the Indendence back up.

In the Sun Belt the beef is that the bowl alignment favors the west.

This is one place where G5 cooperation can be accomplished and make sense. Pool a group of bowls promise each league X number of bids and each year have a committee assign. If AAC West is strong one year assign more western games to AAC, get the best match-ups while trying to keep teams from being sent too far for fans to follow.

(01-01-2015 02:00 PM)Ned Low Wrote:  I'm sure it's already been discussed, but adding UMass for football would make sense if and only if CUSA can get their Olympic sports as well. Being that I doubt UMass would take that deal, I don't see it happening.

I hope that UAB is able to stay in CUSA for their Olympic sports and I'm sure that an exception will be made for them; they are a founding member, after all...

Add three schools to CUSA: Ga Southern, Arkansas State and Lousiana. You could also take James Madison in lieu of one of the above three. You would have 16 for football and 17 for basketball... it could work.


Good luck to CUSA and congrats on a great bowl season!

I have my doubts on the exception for UAB because of how this went down. I doubt there is much trust by C-USA presidents of UAB's ability to deliver on any promise to remain div 1. According to FBschedules site UAB contracted for a football game at Kentucky in 2016 and this was announced on 10/1/14, just 3 months ago. Reports came out on 11/30 that UAB might drop football. On 12/2 the shutdown was done.

(01-01-2015 05:29 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  As long as exit fees continue to be part of conference membership, very few conferences will fold outright. Very rarely do a sufficient number of schools leave at the same time to prompt formal dissolution of a conference. If the entire membership of a conference found a better gig elsewhere, then it might dissolve - otherwise the school(s) left behind will gladly cash the exit fee checks, and then turn around and invite more members.

One would think but the SWC did fold.

If the Western schools of the AAC all left at once for the XII would the AAC be able to stay in business? And if they were able to stay in business most likely they would be wanting to add schools along the East Coast (Army, UMass, ODU, FIU) and not back in the South Central region.

SMU or Tulsa can either talk to the MWC or rejoin CUSA at that point. The less schools CUSA adds, the more attractive up to an extent its going to be for retreads.

(01-01-2015 05:14 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  UTEP (easily beat by Utah St.) vs. Houston (plays Pitt tomorrow)

Hey, knock it off. UTEP was down 14-6 late in the 4th qtr. Easy my hairy butt.
[/quote]

I've never seen anything like this year's USU team, amazing how many QB's they went through (4 I believe) and it never really showed up.

I had USU in my bowl pool and was worried until late that they wouldn't cover.

(01-01-2015 05:19 PM)gassman 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:  

(01-01-2015 12:40 AM)gassman Wrote:  Agree 100%. Going to sixteen will cut costs massively on all the travel that has to be done by all the Olympic sports. That also insulates them a bit should the AAC lose teams and they pick off some CUSA schools.

No idea about the west but in the east Georgia Southern makes a lot of sense. Opens up a new state and they have strong football.

Out west maybe Arkansas State and South Alabama.

Whatever it takes reducing costs is going to be huge and may put more money in their pockets than they lose by dilution of the conference pay out. Plus the fact with additional inventory they will likely get more revenue.

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.

Georgia Southern for the east. Opens up Georgia, adds a good football school and I'm confident they can get their Olympics up to speed.

Plus I can drive there for games from Charlotte :-)

In the west I have no idea. I don't know enough about the teams out there.

If you want to make a big decision like expanding to 16 teams, you really need to have 3 quality programs on your list. Southern Georgia had a really nice season. I even like their campus and athletic facilities, but I don't know if they are the right program right now. C-USA is trying to negotiate a new media deal. I don't see a large population in their area that would appeal to FOX or any other networks. Though I don't agree with you, I can appreciate your desire for another convenient road game.

(01-01-2015 05:42 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 05:19 PM)gassman 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.

Georgia Southern for the east. Opens up Georgia, adds a good football school and I'm confident they can get their Olympics up to speed.

Plus I can drive there for games from Charlotte :-)

In the west I have no idea. I don't know enough about the teams out there.

If you want to make a big decision like expanding to 16 teams, you really need to have 3 quality programs on your list. Southern Georgia had a really nice season. I even like their campus and athletic facilities, but I don't know if they are the right program right now. C-USA is trying to negotiate a new media deal. I don't see a large population in their area that would appeal to FOX or any other networks. Though I don't agree with you, I can appreciate your desire for another convenient road game.

Yeah man I went to my first two road games in football this year and had a blast. Not going to be able to do that often in CUSA play. I'm a big proponent of regionalization because of it. For a school like Charlotte we need games that are drivable to build the fan base. Hopefully we will take care if that with OOC in the future.

(01-01-2015 05:51 PM)gassman Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 05:42 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 05:19 PM)gassman Wrote:  

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

(01-01-2015 04:49 PM)gassman Wrote:  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.

Georgia Southern for the east. Opens up Georgia, adds a good football school and I'm confident they can get their Olympics up to speed.

Plus I can drive there for games from Charlotte :-)

In the west I have no idea. I don't know enough about the teams out there.

If you want to make a big decision like expanding to 16 teams, you really need to have 3 quality programs on your list. Southern Georgia had a really nice season. I even like their campus and athletic facilities, but I don't know if they are the right program right now. C-USA is trying to negotiate a new media deal. I don't see a large population in their area that would appeal to FOX or any other networks. Though I don't agree with you, I can appreciate your desire for another convenient road game.

Yeah man I went to my first two road games in football this year and had a blast. Not going to be able to do that often in CUSA play. I'm a big proponent of regionalization because of it. For a school like Charlotte we need games that are drivable to build the fan base. Hopefully we will take care if that with OOC in the future.

I see we will be hosting your boys in basketball in two short weeks. Looking forward to that.

(01-01-2015 04:36 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 04:12 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(01-01-2015 03:56 PM)SApuro Wrote:  AAC offers little to no upgrade over CUSA. All G5 conferences have a shot at the access. With the exit/entrance fees and minimal TV $ increase it doesn't make a lot of sense for most CUSA or MWC members.

Personally I don't like the AACs bowl line up. It heavily favors the eastern teams.

CUSA we have Heart of Dallas, New Mexico and New Orleans (most years). Not to mention the Indendence back up.

I agree with some of that. I don't really see a football advantage to the AAC. Even playing a weak OOC schedule, Marshall would have earned the BCS spot if they would have gone undefeated. C-USA is on an equal playing field in that regard. As far as the bowls are concerned, I like our bowl locations better too, but the AAC does have better ties to P5 conferences with their bowls.

But I'm with you, I would rather keep C-USA together. I like our collection of Texas programs, LA Tech, and Southern Miss here in C-USA West. Yes, the AAC makes more money, but I like being able to travel to away games against programs I get excited about playing.

I can see for UNT playing LaTech, Southern Miss and Rice would be attractive over SBC names.

What if you are Middle Tennessee? Wouldn't you rather play in the West with Southern Miss, LaTech and UNT over CUSA East schools with little tradition? Thinking about it that way splitting divisions from WKU sounds a lot more palatable.

If MTSU can be sold on the West, that opens up space for Ohio in the East. Ohio would be a nice roadie for WKU (Northern Kentucky alums), Marshall and Charlotte in football. In basketball East/West alignment doesn't even matter because its one division.

I believe most MT fans want to be with WKU. They have a history. Also, I believe both prefer to be in the east.