C-USA in position to help UAB, and should

Harry · May 4, 2015

Conference USA needs to err on the side of caution in the UAB situation.

I know, I know.

There are some impetuous athletic directors in C-USA who would kick the Blazers to the curb lock, stock and basketball program during spring meetings later this month.

To be kind, I think they are misguided.

To be honest, they are misanthropes.

A rush to judgment not only would be a mistake, it would be a crime considering UAB and Southern Miss are the longest-standing members of this plundered league.

The Blazers simply deserve better.

And it appears that's what UAB will get.

Although C-USA reportedly has told UAB it won't amend the bylaws to keep the Blazers without football, the league also isn't treating UAB like it has leprosy.

Read more: http://www.herald-dispatch.com/sports/x1641588487/C-USA-in-position-to-help-UAB-and-should

outoftown · May 4, 2015

Well. UAB did not exactly give the league enough time to adjust its football things, I.e. the league treats UAB better than vice cversa. And UAB fighting with a horrible UA system is not primarily C-USAs problem to solve, it is primarily UABs problem to solve and so far the whole situation there just looks like a leadship mess. So I can understand the unhappyness of C-USA presidents and ADs. That said, waiting for one season to see if things sort out is probably smart, but if they don't read football, they absolutely need to go. Having basketball only schools is the start to having happen what happened to the old big east.

And as for his argument that there are no decent candidates for replacement: Well unless UAB finally finds a way for facilities upgrade etc just having a program makes UAB no good member of the league. What the league needed to see from UAB was more commitment, not less.

Edited May 4, 2015 by outoftown

oldguystudent · May 4, 2015

The problem is I hear current league member Louisiana Tech is adamantly opposed to nearby neighbor ULL, which is understandable.

I absolutely do not understand this mentality. Wasn't the whole premise of conferences once a way for schools in geographic proximity to schedule each other on purpose?

When does this trickle down to high school? When does Denton Guyer insist that Denton High get kicked out of the district in favor of Austin Westlake. Or, better, maybe Bishop Amat out of La Puente, CA! Those guys are a HUGE name in high school football, and they're nowhere near close enough to screw with our recruiting!

Cerebus · May 4, 2015

I absolutely do not understand this mentality.

Let me explain it then:

1) Recruiting advantage. Conference affiliation does mean something to many recruits. Now CUSA doesn't have the same glamour as the SEC, but it does have more than the SBC.

2) Donor Giving. LaTech is more than happy remind donors that they are in a better conference than ULL and that they need to give in order to keep it that way.

3) TV money. CUSA deal is currently 10x that of SBC. Why give that same advantage to a rival.

LaTech stayed on an island in the WAC in order not to be in the SBC, and their donors gladly forked over the travel cost money to keep it that way.

In the end, I still think LaTech gets in.

untjim1995 · May 4, 2015

La Tech looks down on the other Louisiana schools, not named LSU or Tulane.

SMU looks down on us.

UTEP looks down on NMSU.

Its the stupidity of trying to make your G5 program look attractive still, when its lost its appeal years ago (see SMU). These schools would rather pay exhorbitant travel costs than be affiliated with the schools deemed "beneath" them. What's even more maddening is that, in each case above, all three combos have played or are scheduled to play each other in football series, since they can help each other beef up attendance. Its just dumb. UH and Rice showed everyone how two schools in the sme markets could easily mesh within a conference for decades. But TV gets in the way and the schools who are higher on the totem pole won't let those below them move upward if they can do anything about it.

NTXCoog · May 4, 2015

La Tech looks down on the other Louisiana schools, not named LSU or Tulane.

SMU looks down on us.

UTEP looks down on NMSU.

Its the stupidity of trying to make your G5 program look attractive still, when its lost its appeal years ago (see SMU). These schools would rather pay exhorbitant travel costs than be affiliated with the schools deemed "beneath" them. What's even more maddening is that, in each case above, all three combos have played or are scheduled to play each other in football series, since they can help each other beef up attendance. Its just dumb. UH and Rice showed everyone how two schools in the sme markets could easily mesh within a conference for decades. But TV gets in the way and the schools who are higher on the totem pole won't let those below them move upward if they can do anything about it.

History lesson.... Rice fought like the devil to keep UH out of the SWC because we were deemed beneath them, doing things like offering to sponsor UH for admission, then pulling that sponsorship during conference meeting forcing delays in conference membership for several years. Even Rice's stadium was originally intended to be for both universities and was originally named Houston Stadium. But since it is on Rice campus, they managed to take it over, cutting UH out. It goes back to UH's first season of football. Rice (a power at the time) invited the newly formed UH team to scrimmage. Instead of a nice, quiet closed informal scrimmage, Rice invited the media and fans to a formal scrimmage with officials and proceeded to embarrass the UH team.

Rice vs UH at this point in time is primarily a benefit to Rice. UH fans provide a decent boost to games at Rice. Very few Rice fans come to UH. There is some uptick in UH fan attendance at home because many younger UH fans like the "rivalry," but it does little for the older fan.

Coexistence within a conference with Rice means little to UH. In comparison to many rivalries, UH and Rice is pretty short having been in the same conference only 28 years split between 2 conferences with a 10 year gap in between. And after the game this year, we'll have played Tulsa as many times as we've played Rice.

So I wouldn't say Rice/UH is a great example for your argument.

untjim1995 · May 4, 2015

History lesson.... Rice fought like the devil to keep UH out of the SWC because we were deemed beneath them, doing things like offering to sponsor UH for admission, then pulling that sponsorship during conference meeting forcing delays in conference membership for several years. Even Rice's stadium was originally intended to be for both universities and was originally named Houston Stadium. But since it is on Rice campus, they managed to take it over, cutting UH out. It goes back to UH's first season of football. Rice (a power at the time) invited the newly formed UH team to scrimmage. Instead of a nice, quiet closed informal scrimmage, Rice invited the media and fans to a formal scrimmage with officials and proceeded to embarrass the UH team.

Rice vs UH at this point in time is primarily a benefit to Rice. UH fans provide a decent boost to games at Rice. Very few Rice fans come to UH. There is some uptick in UH fan attendance at home because many younger UH fans like the "rivalry," but it does little for the older fan.

Coexistence within a conference with Rice means little to UH. In comparison to many rivalries, UH and Rice is pretty short having been in the same conference only 28 years split between 2 conferences with a 10 year gap in between. And after the game this year, we'll have played Tulsa as many times as we've played Rice.

So I wouldn't say Rice/UH is a great example for your argument.

Did UH vote to keep Rice from joining CUSA when they left the WAC with SMU, UTEP, and Tulsa? I really don't know. If they did, you're right--that's not a great example, but the fact that they did co-exist for all of those years in the same conference is really what UNT and SMU should have been able to do during the last few conference realignments.

I find it amazing that small private SMU has more pull with conference alignment than a huge public school in Texas does, but there is absolute no doubt that they do. Rice would never be able to outpace UH in today's college athletics landscape, just due to size.

NM Green · May 4, 2015

How does Houston feel about a series with UNT? I mean does uh feel more inclined to beast up the series with the large state school up north. It just seems natural to me that the Cougars roadkill and mean green should all be playing each other as big city duos. I liked our series with Houston and they just seem like a more logical lineup than rice. But the rice mean green games have been memorable for sure some good some bad memorable.

GMG

NTXCoog · May 4, 2015

How does Houston feel about a series with UNT? I mean does uh feel more inclined to beast up the series with the large state school up north. It just seems natural to me that the Cougars roadkill and mean green should all be playing each other as big city duos. I liked our series with Houston and they just seem like a more logical lineup than rice. But the rice mean green games have been memorable for sure some good some bad memorable.
GMG

I would love it since I live in Providence Village and used to live in Denton (the reason I hang out here). I know there are plenty of Dallas based alums that enjoy it too. But a series doesn't really energize the UH fanbase. I don't think anyone is opposed to it though. As long as it makes financial sense for UH, I think UH fans would approve. I think it would be preferred to Texas State the next 2 years.

Ben Gooding · May 4, 2015

Who cares about UH of what their fans think. Let's stick to us and keep worrying about us. Let's ensure that CUSA programs keep scheduling AAC programs to ensure that it is continuously proven that the better programs are actually residing in CUSA by beating them on the field rather than in perception. That perception will eventually wilt away, book it.

greenit · May 4, 2015

What Houston did to Rice (pass them by) is exactly why SMU will fight to keep us out of any conference they are in.

NTXCoog · May 5, 2015

What Houston did to Rice (pass them by) is exactly why SMU will fight to keep us out of any conference they are in.

Houston passed Rice before we got into the SWC. They haven't been ranked since 1961. We were ranked in 1967 (didn't finish ranked because they only had top 10 then) and finished ranked from 1968-1971. We were averaging about 30k per year with some games >40k. If UNT finishes ranked 4 years in a row and averages 30k, I guarantee you could move up in conference, no matter what SMU does.

wardly · May 5, 2015

I don't know where those 30k and 40k fans per game played.We just had the 2 sides of Fouts, and didn't play in either the Cotton bowl or Texas stadium until 1971 Also,we were 8&2 in 68',7&3 in 69', and 3&8 in both 70' and 71'. The last year during Rod Rust's era that we won the MVC was 1967 with a record of 7-1-1. The only year I find that we were ranked in division 1 was 1977 under Hayden Fry. We were 9&2 and ranked 16th in nation.[later Miss. St. had to forfeit a 2 point victory so out official record was changed to 10&1].

97and03 · May 5, 2015

He is talking about UH.

Ben Gooding · May 5, 2015

We won't average 30k in a season until the last decade of students all hit their 40's and the current decade hits their 30's. The 80's/90's students are the lost ones here at UNT and that is the demographic around the country currently flocking to CFB stadiums on Saturdays. That is why winning RIGHT NOW at North Texas is so important. If the administration tucks their tails and goes hiding again we will lose the last and current decade of students forever. And in 20 years from now be literally in the exact same situation talking about lost time, apathy, bad management, etc. Because make no mistake, another shift or another realignment is in the close future and UNT has to do everything they can on and off the field to ensure they are not left behind.