(02-08-2012 12:59 PM)exflash Wrote:  

(02-08-2012 12:04 PM)LR Eagle Wrote:  

(02-08-2012 11:05 AM)slappycajun Wrote:  

(02-08-2012 10:15 AM)LR Eagle Wrote:  .

La Tech and ULL/ULM will also face resistance from USM and Tulane.

This is my biggest problem with the Belt. We constantly get lumped right next to those guys. As if we are interchangeable.

As far as expansion goes you are. Neither school is located in a significant TV market. Neither school has any sustained success in football (since 2000 ULL's winning percentage ranks 96 out of 120 and ULM ranks 109). You both sit the LA recruiting grounds USM and Tulane use.

It's a pity, ULL's fans seem nice and you traveled pretty well back in 2008, but I just don't see any benefit to adding either of you to C-USA at this point. If the big boys get their way we'll all be FCS before too long anyway.

-------WOW finally we have the honesty to the real reason that they don't want the Cajuns---We will out recruit both USM and Tulane in the coming years----All the stars are lining up-----But your reference to '08 recruiting is way off base----WE BROUGHT OVER 40K TO THE NO BOWL---THIS IS ALMOST IN 2012!!!!!!! But our market is growing and way ahead of Monroe and Ruston---I know it is hard for outsiders to understand the strangle hold that was around our school and the jet engine that is now on its back---but the facts are in the entire school's turn around in just 2 years!!!! We will average 35 to 40K in football next year----All the talk wants to not let UL in the discussion --finally the truth!!!!

Do they not teach reading comprehension at ULL?

No one is afraid of you, it's just that no one wants you.

Out-recruiting Tulane is not an accomplishment, there are FCS schools that can beat them for recruits.

I'm not concerned about your dinky little program outrecruiting USM in the least all, we don't get all that many guys from LA, most of our players are from AL and GA, though our new coach is renewing our focus on MS. However, I see no reason to make things any easier for ULL than necessary.

As far 2008, my statement was actually a compliment about the number of ULL fans that traveled to Hattiesburg to watch ULL lose by 30 to a USM team that finished 7-6 (that still beat the Suck Belt champ in the NO Bowl).

Hudspeth will be gone soon enough and you won't be so cocky then.

LR Eagle just fly away because you came here expecting things just like in the past. A few years ago everyone in the Sun Belt would have been in line to promote their team to you but that ship has sailed.

This is not the same eight team Sun Belt that could not produce two teams with a winning record like you conference USA fans want us to be. And Troy will beat heading to USM on the 24th-26th to say hello to your USM baseball team in two weeks.

If you guys lose the series to us again this year your AD might not want to schedule us and may go after Alabama State.

(02-08-2012 12:35 PM)LR Eagle Wrote:  

(02-08-2012 12:06 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Yeah see the point I continuously make that is if the West conference USA teams bolt and ECU, Marshall, UAB, and USM (if they don't bolt to) try to propose getting something like WKU, FIU, FAU, ASU, MTSU, then what is the point of them leaving the Sun Belt? The only thing that literally just happened is you just moved most of the the Sun Belt conference to join a conference with a few inconsistent teams who don't hold any sway over their markets. I still find it funny that UAB fans even try to claim the Birmingham market considering Walmarts don't even sell UAB clothing in most the stores and no one in Birmingham watches UAB do anything.

If five Sun Belt teams moved to a league the TV deal would be equal or worse than what the Sun Belt will get with it's continuing improvement every year. I think it would just be wise to force them into merging or waiting until they get raided by the MWC so we can eventually land any four or two between ECU, UAB, USM, and Marshall. Heck UAB would be a lot better of playing Troy, South, and Middle Tenn in conference play every year for all sports.

The C-USA brand is worth more than the Sunbelt. Like it or not, most people outside the Southeast still view the Sunbelt as little better than a FCS conference.

If C-USA wants to go back to twelve with no merger, then I guarantee they'll find four takers out of FIU, FAU, Troy, MTSU, WKU, UNT, La Tech, ULL, ODU, Temple/UMASS, Appy State. Not everyone will be thrilled, but it can easily happen.

(02-08-2012 01:26 PM)LR Eagle Wrote:  As far 2008, my statement was actually a compliment about the number of ULL fans that traveled to Hattiesburg to watch ULL lose by 30 to a USM team that finished 7-6 (that still beat the Suck Belt champ in the NO Bowl).

Hudspeth will be gone soon enough and you won't be so cocky then.

I don't think anyone who knows our history of our program would fear our football program.

However, we bring more to the table than a lot of schools. And I would argue we bring more to the table than Tech.

I understand the TV market issue, and that will be the main driver of the bus.

We have had more success across the board in a lot of sports than other institutions, but we will always be hampered by our lack of football success. Hopefully, it continues because if it does, we have fan support that rivals USM more than schools in our own conference.

However, with that being said, I can see why a conference would choose, FIU, MT or UNT ahead of us unfortunately.

(02-08-2012 01:22 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Based on the 2010-2011 season this is where conference USA football is looking like

Tulane 2-11
UTEP 5-7
Rice 4-8
Tulsa 8-5
UAB 3-9
ECU 5-7
Marshall 7-6
USM 12-2

The teams in bold are the ones who could bolt to the MWC. And ECU may be the next BE target if it has to expand. Now let's ask in the last ten years how many have been to BCS games? Crickets.........How many have been ranked in the top 15 crickets...... What big Markets do you have? HAHA a corner of Birmingham? How many have Kellen Moore type guys have there been recently not counting Houston.

Now lets look at the MWC. Hawaii has made a BCS bowl, I believe NEVADA finished in the top 15 along with Hawaii. Vegas, Reno, San Jose, the whole state of Wyoming, New Mexico, Air Force. I'm to lazy to look up MWC players but I know they have some guys who were in the running for awards like that Nevada QB last year.

Yawn

Your conference has to pay E$PN to televise your games on Tuesday night. The champ of your conference rarely even gets ranked. Your best bowl tie in is the NO Bowl, which typically pits your champ against the C-USA #6, and you still manage to lose that more often than not.

I have no conference allegiance, that's for $EC mouth breathers and fans of crappy schools who beat their chest when conference mates accomplish things. My ony desire is what's best for USM, and being saddled with the UL twins or Troy isn't it.

(02-08-2012 01:56 PM)slappycajun Wrote:  

(02-08-2012 01:26 PM)LR Eagle Wrote:  As far 2008, my statement was actually a compliment about the number of ULL fans that traveled to Hattiesburg to watch ULL lose by 30 to a USM team that finished 7-6 (that still beat the Suck Belt champ in the NO Bowl).

Hudspeth will be gone soon enough and you won't be so cocky then.

I don't think anyone who knows our history of our program would fear our football program.

However, we bring more to the table than a lot of schools. And I would argue we bring more to the table than Tech.

I understand the TV market issue, and that will be the main driver of the bus.

We have had more success across the board in a lot of sports than other institutions, but we will always be hampered by our lack of football success. Hopefully, it continues because if it does, we have fan support that rivals USM more than schools in our own conference.

However, with that being said, I can see why a conference would choose, FIU, MT or UNT ahead of us unfortunately.

Someone reasonable to talk to about realignment.

In a perfect world a conference of USM, ECU, Marshall, Tulane, La TEch, ULL, MTSU, Arky State, UNT, UTSA, and some combination of FIU/FAU/UAB/Troy/ODU/Appy State would be fine. Unfortuntely, E$PN and the $EC have poisioned college football and money is the driving factor, if you don't have it you get left behind and LA Tech and ULL simply don't bring enough to the table to make it feasible.

If we had an actual play off and less biased sports media, actual regional conferences could flourish, but we don't.

(02-08-2012 03:02 PM)LR Eagle Wrote:  

(02-08-2012 01:22 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Based on the 2010-2011 season this is where conference USA football is looking like

Tulane 2-11
UTEP 5-7
Rice 4-8
Tulsa 8-5
UAB 3-9
ECU 5-7
Marshall 7-6
USM 12-2

The teams in bold are the ones who could bolt to the MWC. And ECU may be the next BE target if it has to expand. Now let's ask in the last ten years how many have been to BCS games? Crickets.........How many have been ranked in the top 15 crickets...... What big Markets do you have? HAHA a corner of Birmingham? How many have Kellen Moore type guys have there been recently not counting Houston.

Now lets look at the MWC. Hawaii has made a BCS bowl, I believe NEVADA finished in the top 15 along with Hawaii. Vegas, Reno, San Jose, the whole state of Wyoming, New Mexico, Air Force. I'm to lazy to look up MWC players but I know they have some guys who were in the running for awards like that Nevada QB last year.

Yawn

Your conference has to pay E$PN to televise your games on Tuesday night. The champ of your conference rarely even gets ranked. Your best bowl tie in is the NO Bowl, which typically pits your champ against the C-USA #6, and you still manage to lose that more often than not.

I have no conference allegiance, that's for $EC mouth breathers and fans of crappy schools who beat their chest when conference mates accomplish things. My ony desire is what's best for USM, and being saddled with the UL twins or Troy isn't it.

Good edit, there.

You know, the belittling the SBC Talk on our board by others is getting f'n old.

I've heard some of the same stuff said about your school from those "high horse" fans in your own state.

(02-08-2012 03:06 PM)LR Eagle Wrote:  In a perfect world a conference of USM, ECU, Marshall, Tulane, La TEch, ULL, MTSU, Arky State, UNT, UTSA, and some combination of FIU/FAU/UAB/Troy/ODU/Appy State would be fine. Unfortuntely, E$PN and the $EC have poisioned college football and money is the driving factor, if you don't have it you get left behind and LA Tech and ULL simply don't bring enough to the table to make it feasible.

If we had an actual play off and less biased sports media, actual regional conferences could flourish, but we don't.

It would be interesting to see where the breakeven point would be. In other words, how much are TV payouts.

And if so when do TV payouts not justify the greater expense of travel and the loss of revenue from visiting fans.

Obviously in the BCS conferences TV money is much greater. I'm sure it makes sense in the CUSA standpoint as well. However, when you think about MAC and Sunbelt schools I doubt it would make sense.

(02-08-2012 03:06 PM)LR Eagle Wrote:  

(02-08-2012 01:56 PM)slappycajun Wrote:  

(02-08-2012 01:26 PM)LR Eagle Wrote:  As far 2008, my statement was actually a compliment about the number of ULL fans that traveled to Hattiesburg to watch ULL lose by 30 to a USM team that finished 7-6 (that still beat the Suck Belt champ in the NO Bowl).

Hudspeth will be gone soon enough and you won't be so cocky then.

I don't think anyone who knows our history of our program would fear our football program.

However, we bring more to the table than a lot of schools. And I would argue we bring more to the table than Tech.

I understand the TV market issue, and that will be the main driver of the bus.

We have had more success across the board in a lot of sports than other institutions, but we will always be hampered by our lack of football success. Hopefully, it continues because if it does, we have fan support that rivals USM more than schools in our own conference.

However, with that being said, I can see why a conference would choose, FIU, MT or UNT ahead of us unfortunately.

Someone reasonable to talk to about realignment.

In a perfect world a conference of USM, ECU, Marshall, Tulane, La TEch, ULL, MTSU, Arky State, UNT, UTSA, and some combination of FIU/FAU/UAB/Troy/ODU/Appy State would be fine. Unfortuntely, E$PN and the $EC have poisioned college football and money is the driving factor, if you don't have it you get left behind and LA Tech and ULL simply don't bring enough to the table to make it feasible.

If we had an actual play off and less biased sports media, actual regional conferences could flourish, but we don't.

None of the schools you list, except ECU, have money and they have all been left behind. It would be a fine conference. And that's probably where this is headed.

(02-08-2012 03:28 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(02-08-2012 03:06 PM)LR Eagle Wrote:  

(02-08-2012 01:56 PM)slappycajun Wrote:  

(02-08-2012 01:26 PM)LR Eagle Wrote:  As far 2008, my statement was actually a compliment about the number of ULL fans that traveled to Hattiesburg to watch ULL lose by 30 to a USM team that finished 7-6 (that still beat the Suck Belt champ in the NO Bowl).

Hudspeth will be gone soon enough and you won't be so cocky then.

I don't think anyone who knows our history of our program would fear our football program.

However, we bring more to the table than a lot of schools. And I would argue we bring more to the table than Tech.

I understand the TV market issue, and that will be the main driver of the bus.

We have had more success across the board in a lot of sports than other institutions, but we will always be hampered by our lack of football success. Hopefully, it continues because if it does, we have fan support that rivals USM more than schools in our own conference.

However, with that being said, I can see why a conference would choose, FIU, MT or UNT ahead of us unfortunately.

Someone reasonable to talk to about realignment.

In a perfect world a conference of USM, ECU, Marshall, Tulane, La TEch, ULL, MTSU, Arky State, UNT, UTSA, and some combination of FIU/FAU/UAB/Troy/ODU/Appy State would be fine. Unfortuntely, E$PN and the $EC have poisioned college football and money is the driving factor, if you don't have it you get left behind and LA Tech and ULL simply don't bring enough to the table to make it feasible.

If we had an actual play off and less biased sports media, actual regional conferences could flourish, but we don't.

None of the schools you list, except ECU, have money and they have all been left behind. It would be a fine conference. And that's probably where this is headed.

Condolences on the loss of your football player, by the way.

Have they found out what caused it ?

Would there be logistical problems in just starting a new conference completely. Just saying. Hey, we are gonna do this. I guess the biggest struggle would be automatically qualifying for the NCAA tournaments in other sports.

(02-08-2012 03:02 PM)LR Eagle Wrote:  

(02-08-2012 01:22 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  Based on the 2010-2011 season this is where conference USA football is looking like

Tulane 2-11
UTEP 5-7
Rice 4-8
Tulsa 8-5
UAB 3-9
ECU 5-7
Marshall 7-6
USM 12-2

The teams in bold are the ones who could bolt to the MWC. And ECU may be the next BE target if it has to expand. Now let's ask in the last ten years how many have been to BCS games? Crickets.........How many have been ranked in the top 15 crickets...... What big Markets do you have? HAHA a corner of Birmingham? How many have Kellen Moore type guys have there been recently not counting Houston.

Now lets look at the MWC. Hawaii has made a BCS bowl, I believe NEVADA finished in the top 15 along with Hawaii. Vegas, Reno, San Jose, the whole state of Wyoming, New Mexico, Air Force. I'm to lazy to look up MWC players but I know they have some guys who were in the running for awards like that Nevada QB last year.

Yawn

Your conference has to pay E$PN to televise your games on Tuesday night. The champ of your conference rarely even gets ranked. Your best bowl tie in is the NO Bowl, which typically pits your champ against the C-USA #6, and you still manage to lose that more often than not.

I have no conference allegiance, that's for $EC mouth breathers and fans of crappy schools who beat their chest when conference mates accomplish things. My ony desire is what's best for USM, and being saddled with the UL twins or Troy isn't it.

Do you do any research or do you just spout the first moronic thing that pops into your head. Where do I start, first off, the NO bowl doesn't play the #6 team in the bowl, actually, he New Orleans bowl gets 5th pick of bowl teams from the conference, and most bowl comittees will take the most regional opponent, and not the "#2" or "#3" teams. SECONDLY...seriously, just a little bit of research goes a long way. I didn't know that "losing more often than not" meant owning a 6-5 record in that bowl game and having won 5 of the last 6, and the only win in that span (your superior team in 2008) won in overtime, while the other 3 meetings between CUSA and SBC in that span being blowouts. You really make yourself look more and more stupid the longer you talk.

(02-08-2012 03:02 PM)LR Eagle Wrote:  Your conference has to pay E$PN to televise your games on Tuesday night. The champ of your conference rarely even gets ranked. Your best bowl tie in is the NO Bowl, which typically pits your champ against the C-USA #6, and you still manage to lose that more often than not.

Did your momma not teach you that you can go to hell for lying?

Sun Belt TV deal with ESPN does not require paying any production costs, unlike the deal Bankosky signed with Fox.

The Sun Belt vs. CUSA in the New Orleans Bowl is 4-4 all-time. That's not quite "more often than not". And while you might put down the quality of the teams CUSA has sent to the game, three of those CUSA appearances were by teams now in the Big East.

(02-08-2012 04:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-08-2012 03:02 PM)LR Eagle Wrote:  Your conference has to pay E$PN to televise your games on Tuesday night. The champ of your conference rarely even gets ranked. Your best bowl tie in is the NO Bowl, which typically pits your champ against the C-USA #6, and you still manage to lose that more often than not.

Did your momma not teach you that you can go to hell for lying?

Sun Belt TV deal with ESPN does not require paying any production costs, unlike the deal Bankosky signed with Fox.

The Sun Belt vs. CUSA in the New Orleans Bowl is 4-4 all-time. That's not quite "more often than not". And while you might put down the quality of the teams CUSA has sent to the game, three of those CUSA appearances were by teams now in the Big East.

don't forget 3 or the last 4 went the good guys way too in that series...but we cant let facts get in the way of stupidity.

I have it on very good authority from several sources both in the WKU camp and in CUSA that if invites are extended regardless of the merger the teams that wil be invited to CUSA in order are:

1. Temple (and as we saw CUSA contacted them today)
2. WKU (eastern teams want closer travel team)
3. UNT (replaces Houston as another TX school)
4. FIU (opens Florida back up)
5. MTSU (Another eastern travel team)


Take it or leave it. But I have talked to some people in the know and all have told me the exact same order. Rumor is temple will not join bc they like A10 in all sports. So we might see 4 Belt teams taken. Or we might not see CUSA add anyone bc of the MWC merger.

I know some of you will take it with a grain of salt bc WKU tops the list of Belt teams. The reason for that is bc of ECU and Marshall, and ECU's AD.

--Rojogrande

Since 2006 the eight remaining C-USA teams (minus the newly added Big Least teams) are 16-7 versus the Suck Belt. Only one (UAB) has a losing record.

That's all I have to say.

(02-08-2012 04:49 PM)Rojogrande Wrote:  I have it on very good authority from several sources both in the WKU camp and in CUSA that if invites are extended regardless of the merger the teams that wil be invited to CUSA in order are:

1. Temple (and as we saw CUSA contacted them today)
2. WKU (eastern teams want closer travel team)
3. UNT (replaces Houston as another TX school)
4. FIU (opens Florida back up)
5. MTSU (Another eastern travel team)


Take it or leave it. But I have talked to some people in the know and all have told me the exact same order. Rumor is temple will not join bc they like A10 in all sports. So we might see 4 Belt teams taken. Or we might not see CUSA add anyone bc of the MWC merger.

I know some of you will take it with a grain of salt bc WKU tops the list of Belt teams. The reason for that is bc of ECU and Marshall, and ECU's AD.

--Rojogrande

Don't know who cooked that list but Temple #1 is right.

WKU #2 isn't even remotely in the realm of possibilty. UNT is slotted correctly but FIU is #2.

You really add credibility to your opinion by saying "hurr suck belt loool" every post.

(02-08-2012 05:34 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  You really add credibility to your opinion by saying "hurr suck belt loool" every post.

I'm not concerned about my credibility to a bunch of message board posters.

I merely posted my opinions as to why the UL twins and Troy were not desirable expansion targets and some people acted like I killed their dog.

I wasn't trying to upset anyone but if someone takes anything said on a message board personally, they need to stop posted and reassess their life.

(02-08-2012 05:33 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(02-08-2012 04:49 PM)Rojogrande Wrote:  I have it on very good authority from several sources both in the WKU camp and in CUSA that if invites are extended regardless of the merger the teams that wil be invited to CUSA in order are:

1. Temple (and as we saw CUSA contacted them today)
2. WKU (eastern teams want closer travel team)
3. UNT (replaces Houston as another TX school)
4. FIU (opens Florida back up)
5. MTSU (Another eastern travel team)


Take it or leave it. But I have talked to some people in the know and all have told me the exact same order. Rumor is temple will not join bc they like A10 in all sports. So we might see 4 Belt teams taken. Or we might not see CUSA add anyone bc of the MWC merger.

I know some of you will take it with a grain of salt bc WKU tops the list of Belt teams. The reason for that is bc of ECU and Marshall, and ECU's AD.

--Rojogrande

Don't know who cooked that list but Temple #1 is right.

WKU #2 isn't even remotely in the realm of possibilty. UNT is slotted correctly but FIU is #2.

I have to agree. I wouldn't think WKU would be in the #2 spot, if they are then the CUSA officials really are going crazy. FIU is #2 from all I've seen and heard.