Wyoming and UAB. Hawai'i and Tulane. Nevada and Marshall. This did not make any sense. None. Zero.

I'm not sure what further expansion does for CUSA or the Mountain West. Its not like anyone that either could get would improve the tv deal for either.

The MWC probably could stand to take some more teams. Other than NMSU and Idaho, whom the MWC says it doesn't want, there is currently one realistic expansion candidate: Texas State. Five years from now there will likely be the same three (and only three) expansion candidates. The MWC is far more likely to suffer losses than to add members.

The MWC isn't particularly stable.

(07-26-2012 02:52 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(07-26-2012 02:38 PM)mbelcher987 Wrote:  We're very much happy with where we ended up.

.

I expect in most cases UAB is just happy to be kept around...

butt hurt

(07-27-2012 10:55 PM)EdisonDoyle Wrote:  

(07-26-2012 02:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Where are all those MWC and C-USA fans who said the presidents had eyed all the angles and all those problems we kept raising with the deal were just signs that we were jealous?

They did eye all the angles - and they should have gone through with it, instead of this regional expansion, although it would have taken a few years. Some C-USA pres' (one in particular but one who drives a lot of C-USA revenue) wanted the regional league instead.
The merger was a gamble because the TV numbers weren't firm. But Imo it was worth the gamble.
C-USA's the one who pulled out of this. The MWC knows it can't get a decent TV deal on its own; they'll try to raid Texas to improve their numbers. C-USA likely won't get a good one either.
It was worth the risk.

The merger was only worth it if it could have gotten at least 3 million per year per team. It wasn't going to get that and therefore wasn't worth all the headaches. Before the Big East took Memphis and Temple I think the whole idea could have worked. I think Temple was about to join (probably FB only but still would have been a help) and the value overall probably would have been there. I think we are going to be able to keep our current TV deal, and got a whole lot more regional for pretty much everyone, which at this point is as good as we could do.

(07-27-2012 11:13 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(07-27-2012 10:55 PM)EdisonDoyle Wrote:  

(07-26-2012 02:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Where are all those MWC and C-USA fans who said the presidents had eyed all the angles and all those problems we kept raising with the deal were just signs that we were jealous?

They did eye all the angles - and they should have gone through with it, instead of this regional expansion, although it would have taken a few years. Some C-USA pres' (one in particular but one who drives a lot of C-USA revenue) wanted the regional league instead.
The merger was a gamble because the TV numbers weren't firm. But Imo it was worth the gamble.
C-USA's the one who pulled out of this. The MWC knows it can't get a decent TV deal on its own; they'll try to raid Texas to improve their numbers. C-USA likely won't get a good one either.
It was worth the risk.

Don't ignore the obvious, short-term benefits of remaining separate, for both conferences. CUSA and the MWC each have basketball tournament money and exit fee money coming their way. Making some new conference would jeopardize these payments. Also, the newly merged conference would only get one automatic NCAA basketball tournament bid. Kept separate, each conference gets a bid, plus whatever "at large" bids they can muster. Similarly, the MWC and CUSA together have something like 11 football bowl tie-ins... would a combined conference also get 11 bowl tie-ins? It's quite possible that they would not.

The MWC and CUSA are better off as two distinct conferences, and the NCAA basically told them that. As as result, the conferences have agreed to collaborate but maintain their independence. Like I posted earlier, they could engage in all-out war, but the conferences are so closely matched that too much bloodshed would result, and this would benefit no one in either conference. Instead, the MWC and CUSA have elected to work together, and this is nothing new. There has been a CUSA vs. MWC bowl in football for most of the years these conferences have existed.

Geography and history basically dictate that there be two conferences at what I'll call the "upper mid major level." The CUSA powers are mostly in the far east: ECU, Marshall, and USM. The MWC is good but its powers are out west: CSU, Wyoming, UNLV, and Hawaii are the teams that come to mind. It just doesn't make sense to try and cannibalize each other when geography dictates that there will be an east upper-mid-major conference and a west upper-mid-major conference. I think the leadership of these two conferences realize that.

Having said all that, though, I will reiterate two things I have said in the past: USM should consider moving to the SBC, and CUSA should consider adding ULL. The SBC is close to being as good as CUSA is in football. Poaching USM would seal the deal. I don't think this will happen, but it's something to consider. CUSA has not really been that kind to USM. As for ULL, I don't understand why they're not in CUSA. They've done a good job establishing themselves as #2 in Louisiana, and CUSA should treat them as such. At least, that's my take on things.

I'm glad no one else in the country, including the administration of USM, agrees with your take on things. ULL is not considered to be the #2 university in Louisiana by anyone other than a few delusional Cajun fans, which is what I figure you are. Tulane, LSU, and La Tech are the only Tier I universities in Louisiana. ULL has not been awarded that classification, and neither has USM, by the way. I can't make it much more simple for you than that. Personally, I think ULL is a very good university, and certainly one of the premier members of the Sunbelt, but saying that ULL is the #2 university in Louisiana is not accurate, no matter how much you wish it were so.

(07-28-2012 09:57 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(07-27-2012 11:13 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(07-27-2012 10:55 PM)EdisonDoyle Wrote:  

(07-26-2012 02:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Where are all those MWC and C-USA fans who said the presidents had eyed all the angles and all those problems we kept raising with the deal were just signs that we were jealous?

They did eye all the angles - and they should have gone through with it, instead of this regional expansion, although it would have taken a few years. Some C-USA pres' (one in particular but one who drives a lot of C-USA revenue) wanted the regional league instead.
The merger was a gamble because the TV numbers weren't firm. But Imo it was worth the gamble.
C-USA's the one who pulled out of this. The MWC knows it can't get a decent TV deal on its own; they'll try to raid Texas to improve their numbers. C-USA likely won't get a good one either.
It was worth the risk.

Don't ignore the obvious, short-term benefits of remaining separate, for both conferences. CUSA and the MWC each have basketball tournament money and exit fee money coming their way. Making some new conference would jeopardize these payments. Also, the newly merged conference would only get one automatic NCAA basketball tournament bid. Kept separate, each conference gets a bid, plus whatever "at large" bids they can muster. Similarly, the MWC and CUSA together have something like 11 football bowl tie-ins... would a combined conference also get 11 bowl tie-ins? It's quite possible that they would not.

The MWC and CUSA are better off as two distinct conferences, and the NCAA basically told them that. As as result, the conferences have agreed to collaborate but maintain their independence. Like I posted earlier, they could engage in all-out war, but the conferences are so closely matched that too much bloodshed would result, and this would benefit no one in either conference. Instead, the MWC and CUSA have elected to work together, and this is nothing new. There has been a CUSA vs. MWC bowl in football for most of the years these conferences have existed.

Geography and history basically dictate that there be two conferences at what I'll call the "upper mid major level." The CUSA powers are mostly in the far east: ECU, Marshall, and USM. The MWC is good but its powers are out west: CSU, Wyoming, UNLV, and Hawaii are the teams that come to mind. It just doesn't make sense to try and cannibalize each other when geography dictates that there will be an east upper-mid-major conference and a west upper-mid-major conference. I think the leadership of these two conferences realize that.

Having said all that, though, I will reiterate two things I have said in the past: USM should consider moving to the SBC, and CUSA should consider adding ULL. The SBC is close to being as good as CUSA is in football. Poaching USM would seal the deal. I don't think this will happen, but it's something to consider. CUSA has not really been that kind to USM. As for ULL, I don't understand why they're not in CUSA. They've done a good job establishing themselves as #2 in Louisiana, and CUSA should treat them as such. At least, that's my take on things.

I'm glad no one else in the country, including the administration of USM, agrees with your take on things. ULL is not considered to be the #2 university in Louisiana by anyone other than a few delusional Cajun fans, which is what I figure you are. Tulane, LSU, and La Tech are the only Tier I universities in Louisiana. ULL has not been awarded that classification, and neither has USM, by the way. I can't make it much more simple for you than that. Personally, I think ULL is a very good university, and certainly one of the premier members of the Sunbelt, but saying that ULL is the #2 university in Louisiana is not accurate, no matter how much you wish it were so.

There is one flagship university in Louisiana, that being LSU. Louisiana Tech isnt Tier 1 in anything. Are you actually claiming that Louisiana Tech is equal or in the same stratosphere as LSU??????? They're no different than UL-M. Certainly no better than ULL in anything either. Sheesh...

He means university classification although a distinct "tier" designation has disappeared, technically.

(07-28-2012 11:59 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  He means university classification although a distinct "tier" designation has disappeared, technically.

I really think this is absurd from the La Tech folks who apparently think they're Harvard or something. Then they come on our board with their nonsense.

(07-29-2012 12:06 AM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  

(07-28-2012 11:59 PM)Tiguar Wrote:  He means university classification although a distinct "tier" designation has disappeared, technically.

I really think this is absurd from the La Tech folks who apparently think they're Harvard or something. Then they come on our board with their nonsense.

Techsters have always been morons...you'll have to get used to it. Also, I like how these Conf USA fans are showing up and acting as if they knew their merger wouldn't work all along.

(07-28-2012 11:27 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  There is one flagship university in Louisiana, that being LSU. Louisiana Tech isnt Tier 1 in anything. Are you actually claiming that Louisiana Tech is equal or in the same stratosphere as LSU??????? They're no different than UL-M. Certainly no better than ULL in anything either. Sheesh...

Do you even know what Tier 1 means? Your post indicates you have no clue. It means they're a Tier 1 nationally ranked institution academically. It's something the SBC has exactly ZERO of according to US News and World reports college rankings. You do have a few quality regional schools.

CUSA Tier 1 Academic Universities: Rice, Tulane, Tulsa, LTU, ECU
Past / exiting members: UC, UL, USF, UCF, SMU

CUSA is focusing east, MWC will poach their west. The move will add a lot more value to the MWC and add more television dollars to the teams added...

UTEP
UTSA
UNT
Tulsa

This will give the MWC a eastern division of:

New Mexico
UTEP
UTSA
UNT
Tulsa
Col. State
Air Force

If Tulsa does not go to the MWC, look for Rice to be added.

(07-29-2012 11:17 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(07-28-2012 11:27 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  There is one flagship university in Louisiana, that being LSU. Louisiana Tech isnt Tier 1 in anything. Are you actually claiming that Louisiana Tech is equal or in the same stratosphere as LSU??????? They're no different than UL-M. Certainly no better than ULL in anything either. Sheesh...

Do you even know what Tier 1 means? Your post indicates you have no clue. It means they're a Tier 1 nationally ranked institution academically. It's something the SBC has exactly ZERO of according to US News and World reports college rankings. You do have a few quality regional schools.

CUSA Tier 1 Academic Universities: Rice, Tulane, Tulsa, LTU, ECU
Past / exiting members: UC, UL, USF, UCF, SMU

I know that the term "tier one" can mean how much money is spent on research and how US News ranks certain schools according to their own criteria. Endowment couldn't possibly be a part of this analysis otherwise Louisiana Tech couldn't be a part of any tier 1, nor value-cost
of a degree (Tulane????), nor value to employers, etc. This argument and presupposition that there's some better educational value or student quality because someone got in a segregation school (La Tech) which the Louisiana legislature funds a higher rate than Grambling next door, wasted $200,000 on a Tulane undergraduate degree so they could get drunk in New Orleans is idiotic.

I will grant that some schools have students with slightly better entering credentials. The difference is non existent in value to graduate schools and employers after the degrees are conferred. A 3.5 gpa at ULM means more than a 3.4 GPA at La Tech. Thats the definition of no difference.
There are some good schools in CUSA. There are a few that are better than some Sun Belt schools. Rice is an example. Louisiana Tech is not better than any school in the Belt.

Again, congratulations for having some research money appropriated to some professor who only does reasearch. Where's Gramblings money btw? It doesnt make that degree any more valuable.

(07-29-2012 12:28 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  

(07-29-2012 11:17 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(07-28-2012 11:27 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  There is one flagship university in Louisiana, that being LSU. Louisiana Tech isnt Tier 1 in anything. Are you actually claiming that Louisiana Tech is equal or in the same stratosphere as LSU??????? They're no different than UL-M. Certainly no better than ULL in anything either. Sheesh...

Do you even know what Tier 1 means? Your post indicates you have no clue. It means they're a Tier 1 nationally ranked institution academically. It's something the SBC has exactly ZERO of according to US News and World reports college rankings. You do have a few quality regional schools.

CUSA Tier 1 Academic Universities: Rice, Tulane, Tulsa, LTU, ECU
Past / exiting members: UC, UL, USF, UCF, SMU

I know that the term "tier one" can mean how much money is spent on research and how US News ranks certain schools according to their own criteria. Endowment couldn't possibly be a part of this analysis otherwise Louisiana Tech couldn't be a part of any tier 1, nor value-cost
of a degree (Tulane????), nor value to employers, etc. This argument and presupposition that there's some better educational value or student quality because someone got in a segregation school (La Tech) which the Louisiana legislature funds a higher rate than Grambling next door, wasted $200,000 on a Tulane undergraduate degree so they could get drunk in New Orleans is idiotic.

I will grant that some schools have students with slightly better entering credentials. The difference is non existent in value to graduate schools and employers after the degrees are conferred. A 3.5 gpa at ULM means more than a 3.4 GPA at La Tech. Thats the definition of no difference.
There are some good schools in CUSA. There are a few that are better than some Sun Belt schools. Rice is an example. Louisiana Tech is not better than any school in the Belt.

Again, congratulations for having some research money appropriated to some professor who only does reasearch. Where's Gramblings money btw? It doesnt make that degree any more valuable.

That maybe the stupidest post I have ever read on a message board. Do you have a college degree from somewhere?

(07-29-2012 01:21 PM)winston70 Wrote:  

(07-29-2012 12:28 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  

(07-29-2012 11:17 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(07-28-2012 11:27 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  There is one flagship university in Louisiana, that being LSU. Louisiana Tech isnt Tier 1 in anything. Are you actually claiming that Louisiana Tech is equal or in the same stratosphere as LSU??????? They're no different than UL-M. Certainly no better than ULL in anything either. Sheesh...

Do you even know what Tier 1 means? Your post indicates you have no clue. It means they're a Tier 1 nationally ranked institution academically. It's something the SBC has exactly ZERO of according to US News and World reports college rankings. You do have a few quality regional schools.

CUSA Tier 1 Academic Universities: Rice, Tulane, Tulsa, LTU, ECU
Past / exiting members: UC, UL, USF, UCF, SMU

I know that the term "tier one" can mean how much money is spent on research and how US News ranks certain schools according to their own criteria. Endowment couldn't possibly be a part of this analysis otherwise Louisiana Tech couldn't be a part of any tier 1, nor value-cost
of a degree (Tulane????), nor value to employers, etc. This argument and presupposition that there's some better educational value or student quality because someone got in a segregation school (La Tech) which the Louisiana legislature funds a higher rate than Grambling next door, wasted $200,000 on a Tulane undergraduate degree so they could get drunk in New Orleans is idiotic.

I will grant that some schools have students with slightly better entering credentials. The difference is non existent in value to graduate schools and employers after the degrees are conferred. A 3.5 gpa at ULM means more than a 3.4 GPA at La Tech. Thats the definition of no difference.
There are some good schools in CUSA. There are a few that are better than some Sun Belt schools. Rice is an example. Louisiana Tech is not better than any school in the Belt.

Again, congratulations for having some research money appropriated to some professor who only does reasearch. Where's Gramblings money btw? It doesnt make that degree any more valuable.

That maybe the stupidest post I have ever read on a message board. Do you have a college degree from somewhere?

Yes. I have one from South Alabama. And an advanced degree from Alabama. Its a doctoral degree. South Alabama's endowment is over $400 million. Alabama's is over a billion.

I also have a well paying job with no student loan debt which I paid for myself. Please take your delusions elsewhere. I'm sure they'd accept this lunacy over on the CAA board. You are welcome to trash my school and my conference on your own board or others. Dont do it here red neck Tech.

Mod. This is getting towards smack talk territory. My bad for not letting the "Louisiana Tech is Harvard and the SBC schools are below La Tech" argument posted on our board slide yet again.

(07-29-2012 01:36 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  

(07-29-2012 01:21 PM)winston70 Wrote:  

(07-29-2012 12:28 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  

(07-29-2012 11:17 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(07-28-2012 11:27 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  There is one flagship university in Louisiana, that being LSU. Louisiana Tech isnt Tier 1 in anything. Are you actually claiming that Louisiana Tech is equal or in the same stratosphere as LSU??????? They're no different than UL-M. Certainly no better than ULL in anything either. Sheesh...

Do you even know what Tier 1 means? Your post indicates you have no clue. It means they're a Tier 1 nationally ranked institution academically. It's something the SBC has exactly ZERO of according to US News and World reports college rankings. You do have a few quality regional schools.

CUSA Tier 1 Academic Universities: Rice, Tulane, Tulsa, LTU, ECU
Past / exiting members: UC, UL, USF, UCF, SMU

I know that the term "tier one" can mean how much money is spent on research and how US News ranks certain schools according to their own criteria. Endowment couldn't possibly be a part of this analysis otherwise Louisiana Tech couldn't be a part of any tier 1, nor value-cost
of a degree (Tulane????), nor value to employers, etc. This argument and presupposition that there's some better educational value or student quality because someone got in a segregation school (La Tech) which the Louisiana legislature funds a higher rate than Grambling next door, wasted $200,000 on a Tulane undergraduate degree so they could get drunk in New Orleans is idiotic.

I will grant that some schools have students with slightly better entering credentials. The difference is non existent in value to graduate schools and employers after the degrees are conferred. A 3.5 gpa at ULM means more than a 3.4 GPA at La Tech. Thats the definition of no difference.
There are some good schools in CUSA. There are a few that are better than some Sun Belt schools. Rice is an example. Louisiana Tech is not better than any school in the Belt.

Again, congratulations for having some research money appropriated to some professor who only does reasearch. Where's Gramblings money btw? It doesnt make that degree any more valuable.

That maybe the stupidest post I have ever read on a message board. Do you have a college degree from somewhere?

Yes. I have one from South Alabama. And an advanced degree from Alabama. Its a doctoral degree. South Alabama's endowment is over $400 million. Alabama's is over a billion.

I also have a well paying job with no student loan debt which I paid for myself. Please take your delusions elsewhere. I'm sure they'd accept this lunacy over on the CAA board. You are welcome to trash my school and my conference on your own board or others. Dont do it here red neck Tech.

I am still amazed by your analytical reasoning skills...

(07-28-2012 11:27 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  

(07-28-2012 09:57 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(07-27-2012 11:13 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(07-27-2012 10:55 PM)EdisonDoyle Wrote:  

(07-26-2012 02:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Where are all those MWC and C-USA fans who said the presidents had eyed all the angles and all those problems we kept raising with the deal were just signs that we were jealous?

They did eye all the angles - and they should have gone through with it, instead of this regional expansion, although it would have taken a few years. Some C-USA pres' (one in particular but one who drives a lot of C-USA revenue) wanted the regional league instead.
The merger was a gamble because the TV numbers weren't firm. But Imo it was worth the gamble.
C-USA's the one who pulled out of this. The MWC knows it can't get a decent TV deal on its own; they'll try to raid Texas to improve their numbers. C-USA likely won't get a good one either.
It was worth the risk.

Don't ignore the obvious, short-term benefits of remaining separate, for both conferences. CUSA and the MWC each have basketball tournament money and exit fee money coming their way. Making some new conference would jeopardize these payments. Also, the newly merged conference would only get one automatic NCAA basketball tournament bid. Kept separate, each conference gets a bid, plus whatever "at large" bids they can muster. Similarly, the MWC and CUSA together have something like 11 football bowl tie-ins... would a combined conference also get 11 bowl tie-ins? It's quite possible that they would not.

The MWC and CUSA are better off as two distinct conferences, and the NCAA basically told them that. As as result, the conferences have agreed to collaborate but maintain their independence. Like I posted earlier, they could engage in all-out war, but the conferences are so closely matched that too much bloodshed would result, and this would benefit no one in either conference. Instead, the MWC and CUSA have elected to work together, and this is nothing new. There has been a CUSA vs. MWC bowl in football for most of the years these conferences have existed.

Geography and history basically dictate that there be two conferences at what I'll call the "upper mid major level." The CUSA powers are mostly in the far east: ECU, Marshall, and USM. The MWC is good but its powers are out west: CSU, Wyoming, UNLV, and Hawaii are the teams that come to mind. It just doesn't make sense to try and cannibalize each other when geography dictates that there will be an east upper-mid-major conference and a west upper-mid-major conference. I think the leadership of these two conferences realize that.

Having said all that, though, I will reiterate two things I have said in the past: USM should consider moving to the SBC, and CUSA should consider adding ULL. The SBC is close to being as good as CUSA is in football. Poaching USM would seal the deal. I don't think this will happen, but it's something to consider. CUSA has not really been that kind to USM. As for ULL, I don't understand why they're not in CUSA. They've done a good job establishing themselves as #2 in Louisiana, and CUSA should treat them as such. At least, that's my take on things.

I'm glad no one else in the country, including the administration of USM, agrees with your take on things. ULL is not considered to be the #2 university in Louisiana by anyone other than a few delusional Cajun fans, which is what I figure you are. Tulane, LSU, and La Tech are the only Tier I universities in Louisiana. ULL has not been awarded that classification, and neither has USM, by the way. I can't make it much more simple for you than that. Personally, I think ULL is a very good university, and certainly one of the premier members of the Sunbelt, but saying that ULL is the #2 university in Louisiana is not accurate, no matter how much you wish it were so.

There is one flagship university in Louisiana, that being LSU. Louisiana Tech isnt Tier 1 in anything. Are you actually claiming that Louisiana Tech is equal or in the same stratosphere as LSU??????? They're no different than UL-M. Certainly no better than ULL in anything either. Sheesh...

you have no idea how stupid you sound right now. At least do some freaking research. Sheeesh

(07-27-2012 11:13 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(07-27-2012 10:55 PM)EdisonDoyle Wrote:  

(07-26-2012 02:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Where are all those MWC and C-USA fans who said the presidents had eyed all the angles and all those problems we kept raising with the deal were just signs that we were jealous?

They did eye all the angles - and they should have gone through with it, instead of this regional expansion, although it would have taken a few years. Some C-USA pres' (one in particular but one who drives a lot of C-USA revenue) wanted the regional league instead.
The merger was a gamble because the TV numbers weren't firm. But Imo it was worth the gamble.
C-USA's the one who pulled out of this. The MWC knows it can't get a decent TV deal on its own; they'll try to raid Texas to improve their numbers. C-USA likely won't get a good one either.
It was worth the risk.

Geography and history basically dictate that there be two conferences at what I'll call the "upper mid major level." The CUSA powers are mostly in the far east: ECU, Marshall, and USM. The MWC is good but its powers are out west: CSU, Wyoming, UNLV, and Hawaii are the teams that come to mind. It just doesn't make sense to try and cannibalize each other when geography dictates that there will be an east upper-mid-major conference and a west upper-mid-major conference. I think the leadership of these two conferences realize that.

The historic WAC and Southern Independents like USM/ECU were part of the CFA along with the ACC, SEC, SWC and Big 8. This is the ONLY reason why the WAC (later MWC) and CUSA were able to pick up the contracts with ESPN for 1 mill per team negotiated in the early 90's.

In 1995, the Major/Mid Major line in basketball had the WAC, CUSA and A10 (which included Temple and VT) all as part of the Major conferences.

As things stand today though with CUSA having North Texas, UT-San Antonio and Florida International as member the league is hardly worthy of major basketball consideration. CUSA is a mid major league that is interchangeble with the Sun Belt from a quality/geography standpoint.

With the MWC gutted of Utah, BYU, TCU and SDSU they are very much a small market type conference. To say they are on a pedestal above the MAC or SBC is unsubstantiated.

Today CUSA (South) is roughly equal to the SBC (Deep South) and the MAC (Midwest) is roughly equal to the MWC (West).

(07-29-2012 02:06 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(07-27-2012 11:13 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(07-27-2012 10:55 PM)EdisonDoyle Wrote:  

(07-26-2012 02:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Where are all those MWC and C-USA fans who said the presidents had eyed all the angles and all those problems we kept raising with the deal were just signs that we were jealous?

They did eye all the angles - and they should have gone through with it, instead of this regional expansion, although it would have taken a few years. Some C-USA pres' (one in particular but one who drives a lot of C-USA revenue) wanted the regional league instead.
The merger was a gamble because the TV numbers weren't firm. But Imo it was worth the gamble.
C-USA's the one who pulled out of this. The MWC knows it can't get a decent TV deal on its own; they'll try to raid Texas to improve their numbers. C-USA likely won't get a good one either.
It was worth the risk.

Geography and history basically dictate that there be two conferences at what I'll call the "upper mid major level." The CUSA powers are mostly in the far east: ECU, Marshall, and USM. The MWC is good but its powers are out west: CSU, Wyoming, UNLV, and Hawaii are the teams that come to mind. It just doesn't make sense to try and cannibalize each other when geography dictates that there will be an east upper-mid-major conference and a west upper-mid-major conference. I think the leadership of these two conferences realize that.

The historic WAC and Southern Independents like USM/ECU were part of the CFA along with the ACC, SEC, SWC and Big 8. This is the ONLY reason why the WAC (later MWC) and CUSA were able to pick up the contracts with ESPN for 1 mill per team negotiated in the early 90's.

In 1995, the Major/Mid Major line in basketball had the WAC, CUSA and A10 (which included Temple and VT) all as part of the Major conferences.

As things stand today though with CUSA having North Texas, UT-San Antonio and Florida International as member the league is hardly worthy of major basketball consideration. CUSA is a mid major league that is interchangeble with the Sun Belt from a quality/geography standpoint.

With the MWC gutted of Utah, BYU, TCU and SDSU they are very much a small market type conference. To say they are on a pedestal above the MAC or SBC is unsubstantiated.

Today CUSA (South) is roughly equal to the SBC (Deep South) and the MAC (Midwest) is roughly equal to the MWC (West).

I agree . . this latest round of realignment leveled the football playing field between the MWC, MAC, CUSA, and SBC. The level of play on the field will not be significantly different among those conferences.

Yep.

(07-29-2012 02:06 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(07-27-2012 11:13 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(07-27-2012 10:55 PM)EdisonDoyle Wrote:  

(07-26-2012 02:18 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Where are all those MWC and C-USA fans who said the presidents had eyed all the angles and all those problems we kept raising with the deal were just signs that we were jealous?

They did eye all the angles - and they should have gone through with it, instead of this regional expansion, although it would have taken a few years. Some C-USA pres' (one in particular but one who drives a lot of C-USA revenue) wanted the regional league instead.
The merger was a gamble because the TV numbers weren't firm. But Imo it was worth the gamble.
C-USA's the one who pulled out of this. The MWC knows it can't get a decent TV deal on its own; they'll try to raid Texas to improve their numbers. C-USA likely won't get a good one either.
It was worth the risk.

Geography and history basically dictate that there be two conferences at what I'll call the "upper mid major level." The CUSA powers are mostly in the far east: ECU, Marshall, and USM. The MWC is good but its powers are out west: CSU, Wyoming, UNLV, and Hawaii are the teams that come to mind. It just doesn't make sense to try and cannibalize each other when geography dictates that there will be an east upper-mid-major conference and a west upper-mid-major conference. I think the leadership of these two conferences realize that.

The historic WAC and Southern Independents like USM/ECU were part of the CFA along with the ACC, SEC, SWC and Big 8. This is the ONLY reason why the WAC (later MWC) and CUSA were able to pick up the contracts with ESPN for 1 mill per team negotiated in the early 90's.

In 1995, the Major/Mid Major line in basketball had the WAC, CUSA and A10 (which included Temple and VT) all as part of the Major conferences.

As things stand today though with CUSA having North Texas, UT-San Antonio and Florida International as member the league is hardly worthy of major basketball consideration. CUSA is a mid major league that is interchangeble with the Sun Belt from a quality/geography standpoint.

With the MWC gutted of Utah, BYU, TCU and SDSU they are very much a small market type conference. To say they are on a pedestal above the MAC or SBC is unsubstantiated.

Today CUSA (South) is roughly equal to the SBC (Deep South) and the MAC (Midwest) is roughly equal to the MWC (West).

I think CUSA basketball is being severely underrated by you, but football strength wise you aren't really wrong. CUSA football past USM, Tulsa, ECU isn't good. Marshall has to keep improving and Tech and FIU need to be competitive day one or we are going to look really bad when Charlotte and ODU get here.