(06-19-2012 11:47 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-19-2012 11:29 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-19-2012 08:11 AM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  ULL would not be agreeable to anything that would cost them more money down the road, that wouldn't make sense. Secondly, we are not talking right now, but possibly two to four years down the road. CUSA is not going to make any more moves now or next year. The only concerns for ULL is Tulane and Rice, not having two programs from Louisiana in the conference now. Both programs see what Hudspeth is capable of doing with recruiting the I-10 corridor and are scared to death to have ULL between New Orleans and Houston. Both programs have become less relevant in football every year.

UL's financial commitments will decide their future. The administration has now been put on notice that if they do not make the financial commitments to move the athletic program forward while Hudspeth is under contract, current and potential donors will be done. A new master facility plan is to be released in August and September, designating priority projects and cost. We will see what happens after that, but we are going to find out what UL's commitment will be very soon.

Therein lies the future of the Sun Belt.

Rice, Tulane, and La.Tech will reflexively vote "no" whenever Louisiana is mentioned. It will take 11 affirmative votes for the Cajuns to get in and the maximum available votes is 11. All that is required to keep the Cajuns out is one school joining them for the block.

Whenever the "new" C-USA is discussed the conversation starts with ECU and USM. The reality is that the modern C-USA would be unlikely to admit either of them. Arkansas State sits in a market very much like USM's and Louisiana sits in a market very much like ECU's. Even in the old C-USA it was a struggle for ECU to get in, first football only then later all-sports.

It is extremely unlikely that C-USA will ever contemplate adding Arkansas State, Louisiana, Western Kentucky, Troy or ULM simply due to market size without requiring the need to evaluate any other potential criteria.

If there is a working list, the Sun Belt schools likely appear on it in roughly this order: MTSU, FAU, Georgia State, USA, Texas State.

Unless C-USA diverts from its established path, we will lose no more than 4 schools (that presumes no FCS are brought into the fold, and that's not a solid presumption) and Arkansas State, Louisiana, ULM, Troy, WKU, UALR, UTA, and probably TxSt are here for the long haul and USA is probably in that mix as well.

I disagree with the bold part. Heck we did just invite La Tech, who is basically a less successful, less supported, and just overall lesser version of ECU and USM. Marshall was added in the previous grouping, essentially a USM and ECU clone of sorts. I think Arkansas State or WKU would stand a chance if they started to go on a Marshall type of run in the late 90's/early 00's of getting an invite. I agree about ULL there are just too many automatic no votes to probably ever get them in.

I think La.Tech was special circumstances. If MWC weren't finishing off the WAC and the Alliance morphing yet again to be less than a merger, it would have never happened.

It took special circumstances for ECU to get in (ie. Liberty refusing to exclusively lock-up if ECU wasn't admitted).

(06-19-2012 12:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think La.Tech was special circumstances. If MWC weren't finishing off the WAC and the Alliance morphing yet again to be less than a merger, it would have never happened.

It took special circumstances for ECU to get in (ie. Liberty refusing to exclusively lock-up if ECU wasn't admitted).

Not exactly an apples to oranges comparison to talk about the circumstances related to the formation of C-USA vs now. If USM and ECU were currently not in C-USA, with us averaging 50k and USM coming off a top 20 season do you really believe those 2 wouldn't be added to C-USA over La Tech? The Liberty Bowl going to bat for us was a big part of us getting in, but Loserville was the only one who really opposed us. At the time it took a unanimous vote to add members, and it took the other members of the league voting to kick them out of the league to get us in.

The 2 thousand pound gorilla in the room nobody wants to admit is there is the fact that that CUSA TV contract will eventually become a fraction of it;s current worth as will all TV contracts for non-major conferences.


...and when it does dissolve, so will CUSA. We are destined to 5 non-major conferences.

1 in the West. (MWC)

1 in the Southwest. (?)SBC/CUSA/Big East leftovers

1 in the Southeast.(?)SBC/CUSA/Bg East leftovers

1 in the East.(?)SBC/CUSA/Big East leftovers

1 in the North. (MAC)



Until then, all we are doing is rearranging furniture.

(06-19-2012 10:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  6) FIU - Plays in a tiny stadium. 2 winning seasons - ever. MTSU will be flying to this game.

You seem to have an obsession with FIU's decision to accept an invitation to CUSA.

So let me ask you Tom, may I call you Tom?

So Tom, for the past 14 years or so, how did MTSU get to Miami to play FIU in all sports? Both are in the same division for most sports, so essentially a home-home each season. Did they walk? Bus? Whatever it is must be different from these new fangled things called airplanes.

The tiny stadium, the same one that all members of the belt has played at some point or another. The same one being expanded right now, the one that before expansion was about the capacity of WKU stadium. This stadium should suddenly be unacceptable to sun belt members who might be considering leaving the conference?

And Tom, we had 2 winning seasons in 10 years of football - ever. Personally I don't think that is bad for a young program. But just for comparison, lets look at a couple of fellow conference mates:
ULL 1 winning season in the last 10 years.
ULM 0 winning seasons in the last 10 years.

Unfortunately, not all of us can play prep schools (Hargrave Military Academy, Army Prep, etc) at home to pad our stats. So we have to play against teams our size or bigger. But I guess you will soon know what I'm talking about.

(06-19-2012 01:12 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-19-2012 12:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think La.Tech was special circumstances. If MWC weren't finishing off the WAC and the Alliance morphing yet again to be less than a merger, it would have never happened.

It took special circumstances for ECU to get in (ie. Liberty refusing to exclusively lock-up if ECU wasn't admitted).

Not exactly an apples to oranges comparison to talk about the circumstances related to the formation of C-USA vs now. If USM and ECU were currently not in C-USA, with us averaging 50k and USM coming off a top 20 season do you really believe those 2 wouldn't be added to C-USA over La Tech? The Liberty Bowl going to bat for us was a big part of us getting in, but Loserville was the only one who really opposed us. At the time it took a unanimous vote to add members, and it took the other members of the league voting to kick them out of the league to get us in.

Let's not forget that pushing up around 50,000 hasn't been the story at ECU until the last two years. In 1998 ECU's attendance looked a lot like Louisiana's last year.

Like I said, Tech was a special circumstance but I don't think there is a C-USA as we know it had the Liberty Bowl not forced the issue on ECU. The membership only pushed the issue because they felt forced into it by the Liberty while Louisville held firm that the league should be basketball first with football playing a small schedule with a lot of room for non-conference play. But for the Liberty it wasn't happening.

In 2005 the league would have been down to Memphis, UAB, USM, Tulane, and Houston. Tulane as it was seriously toyed with the idea of going to the WAC in the midst of the split. At five schools, the league would have lost its automatic bid and lost all the units earned by the departing schools. Tulane would have gone to the WAC and Houston might well have gone with them.

If ECU had not been able to get in C-USA when it did, there is no assurance the attendance would have grown the way it did.

Most likely ECU would have been a charter member of Sun Belt football, which would look vastly different as well. Instead of starting with ASU, Idaho, Louisiana, ULM, MTSU, NMSU and UNT it would have more likely have been ASU, ECU, UCF, Louisiana, Louisiana Tech, MTSU, and UNT with a very outside shot that NMSU would have been in. The New Orleans Bowl probably would not have been created because the Sun Belt would have most likely ended up in the Liberty vs. C-USA instead of it being C-USA vs. MWC.

It's entirely too speculative to conclude whether ECU would have ended up being in C-USA eventually simply because if ECU hadn't joined, odds are Memphis, USM, and UAB end up in the Sun Belt because C-USA would never have been salvageable.

(06-19-2012 01:59 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(06-19-2012 10:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  6) FIU - Plays in a tiny stadium. 2 winning seasons - ever. MTSU will be flying to this game.

You seem to have an obsession with FIU's decision to accept an invitation to CUSA.

So let me ask you Tom, may I call you Tom?

So Tom, for the past 14 years or so, how did MTSU get to Miami to play FIU in all sports? Both are in the same division for most sports, so essentially a home-home each season. Did they walk? Bus? Whatever it is must be different from these new fangled things called airplanes.

The tiny stadium, the same one that all members of the belt has played at some point or another. The same one being expanded right now, the one that before expansion was about the capacity of WKU stadium. This stadium should suddenly be unacceptable to sun belt members who might be considering leaving the conference?

And Tom, we had 2 winning seasons in 10 years of football - ever. Personally I don't think that is bad for a young program. But just for comparison, lets look at a couple of fellow conference mates:
ULL 1 winning season in the last 10 years.
ULM 0 winning seasons in the last 10 years.

Unfortunately, not all of us can play prep schools (Hargrave Military Academy, Army Prep, etc) at home to pad our stats. So we have to play against teams our size or bigger. But I guess you will soon know what I'm talking about.

Good job '4Ever.

Weird how people, in order to make a point, go to extremes to support their point. How about something more relevant and truthful in terms of time like: 2 consecutive winning and Bowl-playing Seasons? Remember, there's a 2012 season coming up in our SBC conference as well., so it could be 3 consecutive seasons before it's all said and done.

Go Panthers!

(06-19-2012 01:59 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(06-19-2012 10:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  6) FIU - Plays in a tiny stadium. 2 winning seasons - ever. MTSU will be flying to this game.

You seem to have an obsession with FIU's decision to accept an invitation to CUSA.

So let me ask you Tom, may I call you Tom?

So Tom, for the past 14 years or so, how did MTSU get to Miami to play FIU in all sports? Both are in the same division for most sports, so essentially a home-home each season. Did they walk? Bus? Whatever it is must be different from these new fangled things called airplanes.

The tiny stadium, the same one that all members of the belt has played at some point or another. The same one being expanded right now, the one that before expansion was about the capacity of WKU stadium. This stadium should suddenly be unacceptable to sun belt members who might be considering leaving the conference?

And Tom, we had 2 winning seasons in 10 years of football - ever. Personally I don't think that is bad for a young program. But just for comparison, lets look at a couple of fellow conference mates:
ULL 1 winning season in the last 10 years.
ULM 0 winning seasons in the last 10 years.

Unfortunately, not all of us can play prep schools (Hargrave Military Academy, Army Prep, etc) at home to pad our stats. So we have to play against teams our size or bigger. But I guess you will soon know what I'm talking about.

We will have a tough season this year. And next year. But hey, if we go 8 seasons without a winning season, you are free to speak out. And yes, WKU has an unappropriate stadium. You are correct to complain about ULM, as they apparently have no intention of scheduling for a winning season (usual OOC schedule for them 3 body bag away games against SEC foes and a FCS game at home).

My point about FIU is not that they suck, but they aren't any better than the teams they are leaving. I owned (until last week) a second home in South Florida (for the past 8 years). FIU gets very little attention down there. Facts are facts. One fact is that South Alabama has no real track record (but more of one than UTSA or UNCC). But another is that FIU has a 4th place finish in the Belt (and a bowl loss to the 5th place in CUSA) along with a 7-6 season two years ago (with a last second bowl win over a MAC team). And a tiny stadium. Prior to that, your team was a trash fire. Not a bad add for CUSA, but not really anyone that is going to cause a team to say....were going to leave where we are at to play with you guys. And your basketball program.....might just be the worst program in D-1 next year. Not just bad, but the worst program out of 300+ teams.

Another point I am making is that the travel situation for all of the Sun Belt schools (except FAU) has been greatly enhanced by the new makeup of the conference. The conference is even compact and has natural travel pairs to ease travel expenses (USA/Troy, ULL/ULM, UTA/TXST, GSU/MTSU or WKU, UALR/ASU). FAU is the only one-off plane trip required. And for most of our schools, they will only need to fly their teams twice a season. This never applied to FAU or FIU (who needed to fly everyone everywhere), but it certainly is a factor for the other schools. In CUSA, the conference has two obvious outliers (UTEP and FIU) along with multiple other long bus trips or plane rides.

FIU's facilities are third from last in the Belt. And yes, USA's old stadium counts as below FIU, but we are new...give us 10 years. And at least we can get SEC home games in our stadium (which would not happen in a 20k stadium).

I wish FIU the best of luck in CUSA. With the depleted conference that you are joining, I don't see too much trouble for your guys, so long as you keep your coach (nice job there) and he can continue to recruit well.

Finally, my point was that Sun Belt = CUSA less ECU/USM. If those teams go in the next round, I don't see any point of a team leaving. FIU's 4th place finish last year doesn't convey dominance of the Belt. Yes, you did tie for first two years ago, but before that.......lets not even go there. And unlike USA, FIU was competing with 4 other newbies over that period (out of 8 teams). So USA will join a conference with 7 established teams and 2 other newbies. We are in for a rougher ride than you guys.

By the way, if you want to see a laughable schedule..cruise on over to UTSA's "FBS" schedule, which must be the weakest "FBS" schedule ever conceived. UTSA could conceivably win 7 games next year (but they wont) and still have a Sagarin rating in the 130s.

(06-19-2012 03:42 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-19-2012 01:12 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-19-2012 12:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think La.Tech was special circumstances. If MWC weren't finishing off the WAC and the Alliance morphing yet again to be less than a merger, it would have never happened.

It took special circumstances for ECU to get in (ie. Liberty refusing to exclusively lock-up if ECU wasn't admitted).

Not exactly an apples to oranges comparison to talk about the circumstances related to the formation of C-USA vs now. If USM and ECU were currently not in C-USA, with us averaging 50k and USM coming off a top 20 season do you really believe those 2 wouldn't be added to C-USA over La Tech? The Liberty Bowl going to bat for us was a big part of us getting in, but Loserville was the only one who really opposed us. At the time it took a unanimous vote to add members, and it took the other members of the league voting to kick them out of the league to get us in.

Let's not forget that pushing up around 50,000 hasn't been the story at ECU until the last two years. In 1998 ECU's attendance looked a lot like Louisiana's last year.

Like I said, Tech was a special circumstance but I don't think there is a C-USA as we know it had the Liberty Bowl not forced the issue on ECU. The membership only pushed the issue because they felt forced into it by the Liberty while Louisville held firm that the league should be basketball first with football playing a small schedule with a lot of room for non-conference play. But for the Liberty it wasn't happening.

In 2005 the league would have been down to Memphis, UAB, USM, Tulane, and Houston. Tulane as it was seriously toyed with the idea of going to the WAC in the midst of the split. At five schools, the league would have lost its automatic bid and lost all the units earned by the departing schools. Tulane would have gone to the WAC and Houston might well have gone with them.

If ECU had not been able to get in C-USA when it did, there is no assurance the attendance would have grown the way it did.

Most likely ECU would have been a charter member of Sun Belt football, which would look vastly different as well. Instead of starting with ASU, Idaho, Louisiana, ULM, MTSU, NMSU and UNT it would have more likely have been ASU, ECU, UCF, Louisiana, Louisiana Tech, MTSU, and UNT with a very outside shot that NMSU would have been in. The New Orleans Bowl probably would not have been created because the Sun Belt would have most likely ended up in the Liberty vs. C-USA instead of it being C-USA vs. MWC.

It's entirely too speculative to conclude whether ECU would have ended up being in C-USA eventually simply because if ECU hadn't joined, odds are Memphis, USM, and UAB end up in the Sun Belt because C-USA would never have been salvageable.

Well you are taking this in a different direction that I really was. I was only saying that any team with our resume or USM's resume would get a C-USA invite regardless of market. If WKU averaged 50k and Ark State averaged around 30k and had 18 straight winning seasons and was coming off a top 20 season each would have been sure thing invites. You might be right about the course of events had we not gotten the C-USA invite when we did, but that's hard to say for sure. I think around the time of the Sun-Belt's formation it would have been tough for us to continue to stay independent. Of course it's entirely possible we might have pushed for a FB only MAC invite in the late 90's early 00's and stayed in the CAA all other sports. Might have been a more preferable option than Sun-Belt all sports. Maybe the Sun-Belt would have let us be FB only at the formation. A lot of different scenarios. However, the one thing I do disagree with you is our attendance has very little to do with C-USA, and much more to do with the OOC series Holland was able to get us with schools like VT, UNC, NC State, WVU, UVA, USC East, and Navy. Those are what got new people in the door and then they realized what a good time games were and kept coming.

But part of your resume is a benefit of being in C-USA. No one has built that sort of resume as an independent in decades.

(06-19-2012 04:07 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  But part of your resume is a benefit of being in C-USA. No one has built that sort of resume as an independent in decades.

No we weren't where we are now when we were independent from a fan base and facilities standpoint, but as a football program we were much stronger. No one recently has built a program as an independent, but I don't think our growth wouldn't have continued if we had stayed independent a few years longer.

(06-19-2012 01:59 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(06-19-2012 10:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  6) FIU - Plays in a tiny stadium. 2 winning seasons - ever. MTSU will be flying to this game.

You seem to have an obsession with FIU's decision to accept an invitation to CUSA.

So let me ask you Tom, may I call you Tom?

So Tom, for the past 14 years or so, how did MTSU get to Miami to play FIU in all sports? Both are in the same division for most sports, so essentially a home-home each season. Did they walk? Bus? Whatever it is must be different from these new fangled things called airplanes.

The tiny stadium, the same one that all members of the belt has played at some point or another. The same one being expanded right now, the one that before expansion was about the capacity of WKU stadium. This stadium should suddenly be unacceptable to sun belt members who might be considering leaving the conference?

And Tom, we had 2 winning seasons in 10 years of football - ever. Personally I don't think that is bad for a young program. But just for comparison, lets look at a couple of fellow conference mates:
ULL 1 winning season in the last 10 years.
ULM 0 winning seasons in the last 10 years.

Unfortunately, not all of us can play prep schools (Hargrave Military Academy, Army Prep, etc) at home to pad our stats. So we have to play against teams our size or bigger. But I guess you will soon know what I'm talking about.

Mr. FIU, UL was 6-5 in 2005, so we have 2 winning seasons in the last 10 years. And we have championships in two D1 Conferences, Sun Belt and the Big West. Just to set the record straight.

(06-19-2012 06:41 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(06-19-2012 01:59 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(06-19-2012 10:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  6) FIU - Plays in a tiny stadium. 2 winning seasons - ever. MTSU will be flying to this game.

You seem to have an obsession with FIU's decision to accept an invitation to CUSA.

So let me ask you Tom, may I call you Tom?

So Tom, for the past 14 years or so, how did MTSU get to Miami to play FIU in all sports? Both are in the same division for most sports, so essentially a home-home each season. Did they walk? Bus? Whatever it is must be different from these new fangled things called airplanes.

The tiny stadium, the same one that all members of the belt has played at some point or another. The same one being expanded right now, the one that before expansion was about the capacity of WKU stadium. This stadium should suddenly be unacceptable to sun belt members who might be considering leaving the conference?

And Tom, we had 2 winning seasons in 10 years of football - ever. Personally I don't think that is bad for a young program. But just for comparison, lets look at a couple of fellow conference mates:
ULL 1 winning season in the last 10 years.
ULM 0 winning seasons in the last 10 years.

Unfortunately, not all of us can play prep schools (Hargrave Military Academy, Army Prep, etc) at home to pad our stats. So we have to play against teams our size or bigger. But I guess you will soon know what I'm talking about.

Mr. FIU, UL was 6-5 in 2005, so we have 2 winning seasons in the last 10 years. And we have championships in two D1 Conferences, Sun Belt and the Big West. Just to set the record straight.

Didn't you share the Belt title with 2 other teams (ULL.ULM & ASU) with Arkansas State being the conference bowl rep ?

(06-19-2012 01:59 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  You seem to have an obsession with FIU's decision to accept an invitation to CUSA.

Anyone with a contrary opinion of FIU....you claim has an obsession.

(06-19-2012 07:43 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(06-19-2012 06:41 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(06-19-2012 01:59 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(06-19-2012 10:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  6) FIU - Plays in a tiny stadium. 2 winning seasons - ever. MTSU will be flying to this game.

You seem to have an obsession with FIU's decision to accept an invitation to CUSA.

So let me ask you Tom, may I call you Tom?

So Tom, for the past 14 years or so, how did MTSU get to Miami to play FIU in all sports? Both are in the same division for most sports, so essentially a home-home each season. Did they walk? Bus? Whatever it is must be different from these new fangled things called airplanes.

The tiny stadium, the same one that all members of the belt has played at some point or another. The same one being expanded right now, the one that before expansion was about the capacity of WKU stadium. This stadium should suddenly be unacceptable to sun belt members who might be considering leaving the conference?

And Tom, we had 2 winning seasons in 10 years of football - ever. Personally I don't think that is bad for a young program. But just for comparison, lets look at a couple of fellow conference mates:
ULL 1 winning season in the last 10 years.
ULM 0 winning seasons in the last 10 years.

Unfortunately, not all of us can play prep schools (Hargrave Military Academy, Army Prep, etc) at home to pad our stats. So we have to play against teams our size or bigger. But I guess you will soon know what I'm talking about.

Mr. FIU, UL was 6-5 in 2005, so we have 2 winning seasons in the last 10 years. And we have championships in two D1 Conferences, Sun Belt and the Big West. Just to set the record straight.

Didn't you share the Belt title with 2 other teams (ULL.ULM & ASU) with Arkansas State being the conference bowl rep ?

Share is still a title in the books, not the bowl.

(06-19-2012 04:05 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Of course it's entirely possible we might have pushed for a FB only MAC invite in the late 90's early 00's and stayed in the CAA all other sports. Might have been a more preferable option than Sun-Belt all sports. Maybe the Sun-Belt would have let us be FB only at the formation. A lot of different scenarios. However, the one thing I do disagree with you is our attendance has very little to do with C-USA, and much more to do with the OOC series Holland was able to get us with schools like VT, UNC, NC State, WVU, UVA, USC East, and Navy. Those are what got new people in the door and then they realized what a good time games were and kept coming.

I wonder now if East Carolina had wished that it never left the CAA.

Had the ECU program joined the MAC football only say in 2000 it might have found a lot more success (and ESPN exposure down the road). Marshall may not have left the MAC in that case.

(06-19-2012 12:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think La.Tech was special circumstances. If MWC weren't finishing off the WAC and the Alliance morphing yet again to be less than a merger, it would have never happened.

It took special circumstances for ECU to get in (ie. Liberty refusing to exclusively lock-up if ECU wasn't admitted).

If a school isn't coming with a large media market or based in California, Texas or Florida it looks like they have to play really good football or just be in the right place at the right time.

Virginia Tech pounded its way from Southern Indy, Big East and then ACC. Boise State from WAC, Mountain West, Big East. This was all made possible by success on the gridiron. Louisville was accepted to the Big East largely because of football success as well.

Cincinnati came into the Big East radar after Louisville was added to the conference to help bridge geography. The move tremendously benefited Cincinnati in recruiting and otherwise would not have made runs in the Top 10. LaTech and ECU both had special circumstances, that I will agree.

I wouldn't ignore the possibility of CUSA again taking a small market school if that school was...

1) In the right place (CMU or WMU just wouldn't work for CUSA). Is the opening in the East or West?

2) If a MAC or SBC team became really good to the point where they would help the overall BCS points of a conference.

Particularly right now with 3 FCS upgrades (UTSA, UNCC, ODU) CUSA is going to be under pressure to add some established FBS schools. Georgia State? Great for market and geography but the school is too new to FCS. Ditto with UMass.

I don't think any of the SBC schools are exhibit any kind of consistency outside of Troy to be selected. The MAC has Ohio or Toledo that might make some sense because they've shown consistency over a 4-5 year period. Particularly Ohio with the program rolling under Frank Solich.

(06-19-2012 06:41 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(06-19-2012 01:59 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(06-19-2012 10:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  6) FIU - Plays in a tiny stadium. 2 winning seasons - ever. MTSU will be flying to this game.

You seem to have an obsession with FIU's decision to accept an invitation to CUSA.

So let me ask you Tom, may I call you Tom?

So Tom, for the past 14 years or so, how did MTSU get to Miami to play FIU in all sports? Both are in the same division for most sports, so essentially a home-home each season. Did they walk? Bus? Whatever it is must be different from these new fangled things called airplanes.

The tiny stadium, the same one that all members of the belt has played at some point or another. The same one being expanded right now, the one that before expansion was about the capacity of WKU stadium. This stadium should suddenly be unacceptable to sun belt members who might be considering leaving the conference?

And Tom, we had 2 winning seasons in 10 years of football - ever. Personally I don't think that is bad for a young program. But just for comparison, lets look at a couple of fellow conference mates:
ULL 1 winning season in the last 10 years.
ULM 0 winning seasons in the last 10 years.

Unfortunately, not all of us can play prep schools (Hargrave Military Academy, Army Prep, etc) at home to pad our stats. So we have to play against teams our size or bigger. But I guess you will soon know what I'm talking about.

Mr. FIU, UL was 6-5 in 2005, so we have 2 winning seasons in the last 10 years. And we have championships in two D1 Conferences, Sun Belt and the Big West. Just to set the record straight.

My apologies, just a transcription error. But my point is still the same and as 'fanatic pointed out, his argument is weak when the 2 winning seasons are the most recent seasons, includes 3-1 in OOC the last season, including a win over the BE co-champ.

If FIU sucks for being 1st in 2010 and 4th in 2011, then what does he really think about the other belt teams that finished behind us? And what does it say about your team which will be playing in a conference where a mediocre team with 0 winning seasons prior can be the conference champs?

Maybe that is what USA prefers, since y'all have gotten use to beating up on prep schools.

As MG61 would say, "sour apples" (the grapes are so big in Texas, they look like apples).

(06-19-2012 08:06 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(06-19-2012 01:59 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  You seem to have an obsession with FIU's decision to accept an invitation to CUSA.

Anyone with a contrary opinion of FIU....you claim has an obsession.

Nah, just those with an inferiority complex that believe they need to put down others to feel good about themselves.

I wish CUSA would've added Ark St instead of UTSA.

(06-19-2012 08:11 AM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(06-19-2012 06:10 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(06-18-2012 03:31 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(06-18-2012 02:44 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  Of course CUSA's going to wait a year or more. They cant swallow anymore right now.

This allows them, in their mind, to cherry pick which of our programs are both successful and in a market. In other words, if Middle Tennessee has a horrible season, they (might) not be at the top of the list.

I think a grant of rights for five years should be agreeable to all. Except MTSU and possibly FAU and WKU. The risk is that if CUSA discovers its about to be implemented, they could destabilize our league. If 10 or 11 of the schools signed it, the non signatory could be expelled from the league.

I think we're pretty much stuck with this sense of we're vulnerable until we win our way above CUSA.

Why would you think the grants of rights would be agreeable to the rest, because you think MTSU, FAU and WKU are the only viable candidates for CSUA? I think you are making huge assumptions, four years is a long time.

ULL would be agreeable to the grants of rights because the Sun Belt is its only option at this point. ULL has no chance at CUSA membership right now because CUSA already has two members from Louisiana. MT, WKU, and FAU do not face that same hurdle. All three have very good chances at being selected by CUSA in the next round of realignment and would therefore, never sign such an agreement. I don't believe ASU or Texas State would sign it either.

ULL would not be agreeable to anything that would cost them more money down the road, that wouldn't make sense. Secondly, we are not talking right now, but possibly two to four years down the road. CUSA is not going to make any more moves now or next year. The only concerns for ULL is Tulane and Rice, not having two programs from Louisiana in the conference now. Both programs see what Hudspeth is capable of doing with recruiting the I-10 corridor and are scared to death to have ULL between New Orleans and Houston. Both programs have become less relevant in football every year.

UL's financial commitments will decide their future. The administration has now been put on notice that if they do not make the financial commitments to move the athletic program forward while Hudspeth is under contract, current and potential donors will be done. A new master facility plan is to be released in August and September, designating priority projects and cost. We will see what happens after that, but we are going to find out what UL's commitment will be very soon.

I do believe that you guys are finally going to pay attention to the goose that lays the golden egg, which is football. That will help your program more than anything else you could do. Basketball may suffer from it, as may the non revenue sports, but in the long run, a successful football program is what drives a successful athletic department. At least, that what drives it in the south.