More Conference Change Stuff -muts/a S U Boards

ccs178 · July 20, 2007

What is that? Some kind of Bolivian chicken?

And this is a prime example of why I don't post here more often. :rolleyes1:

Mean Green 93-98 · July 20, 2007

And this is a prime example of why I don't post here more often.

We're too funny for you?

Arkstfan · July 20, 2007

And this is a prime example of why I don't post here more often.

Ha you should have been here before the 2005 season kicked off. Lot tougher crowd then.

USM either due to financial contraints or preference hasn't invested in basketball like its conference peers over the years, though USM should be more in line now because SMU, Rice, and Tulane are not throwing heavy resources at hoops, they do not have the mindset that Memphis, UAB, and UTEP have. Today's CUSA ain't the old CUSA when it comes to basketball, its not even the old Metro.

USM hasn't made the dance since Turk was there.

SMU was in the SWC last trip

Rice hasn't been in 37 years.

Tulane hasn't been since the final Metro season.

Marshall's last trip was 20 years ago in the Southern Conference.

Houston's last trip was in the SWC.

East Carolina's last trip was nine years before joining CUSA in hoops.

UCF made four trips as A-Sun tournament champ, which is better than not being able to win the A-Sun but not exactly an endorsement either. They went from doormat in the Sun Belt / American South to contender in the TAAC /ASUN so that says something. Main reason they built a new arena was because they wasted millions on a building that was what 15 years old and obstructed view seating.

I've no doubt UTEP is giving full effort but UAB made their first NCAA trip 30 years after UTEP made their first and UAB is only one appearance behind UTEP.

Tulsa is an amazing story. If I remember right they made six consecutive coaching hires that took them to the NCAA Tournament.

The thing is if you are Memphis or UAB or Tulsa, except for name value of UTEP and Houston in basketball there is fundamentally little difference in basketball being affiliated with SMU rather than UNT there is little difference (except for travel time) in being affiliated with Arkansas State or Marshall.

Maybe everyone or most every gets their show together and the investments payoff, but by the same token Rice is recruiting kids who have parents who weren't alive or are too young to remember their last NCAA trip. Marshall is recruiting kids who weren't born at the time of their last trip. Houston is recruiting kids who were toddlers last trip. That's not an impossible obstacle (see Rice football this year, see Rice football immediately lose that coach) but it is a real obstacle in addition to the normal competitive pressures of the game.

Green Means Go! · July 20, 2007

As to building the conference. You damn well better care what the rest of the league is doing because if it is doing poorly it means a good UNT program can miss opportunities, UNT failed to improve in the early years of the Sun Belt and promptly went from winning 30 something games in a row to losing 10 out of 14 tries and did it with teams that were as good as some of the champion teams.

I pull for our conference mates....I hope they all get better. It does us very little good to win a lousy league. So, I hope the Belt does get better, and I think it has.

BUT, I disagree with your comment that our UNT teams of the last two years (ones that lost 10 of 14 conference games)......I disagree that they were as good as some of our championship teams. The teams the last two years weren't even as good as our first championship team, which went to the bowl with a 5-6 record.

Edited July 20, 2007 by Green Means Go!

Arkstfan · July 20, 2007

I pull for our conference mates....I hope they all get better. It does us very little good to win a lousy league. So, I hope the Belt does get better, and I think it has.
BUT, I disagree with your comment that our UNT teams of the last two years (ones that lost 10 of 14 conference games)......I disagree that they were as good as some of our championship teams. The teams the last two years weren't even as good as our first championship team, which went to the bowl with a 5-6 record.

Sagarin agrees with you saying the 01 team was about 9 points better.

KAjunRaider · July 20, 2007

I'm not missing any points. In fact, I think you might have misunderstood what I was saying- and maybe I missed some of the original intent of the poster I commented on. I was merely commenting about why C-USA carries a bigger "name" than the Sun Belt.
I too could give a F about what the conference is called- if it contains ULL, ULM, FAU, FIU, etc and it has ONE bowl tie in, it's inferior to a any conference with UH, Southern Miss, Utep, etc, that has muliple bowl tie-ins and is full of schools that have more money/fan support, on average than the sun belt.
As it stands, C-USA has the bowl tie-ins. I'm not disputing whether or not that could change with a massive shakeup between conferences- schools aren't going to want to go to the Sun Belt without some guarantee it won't be all or nothing for a bowl berth. Otherwise, I cant imagine a single school from C-USA agreeing to such an exchange.
Now I'm going to drag my knuckles over to the kitchen (as soon as I stop scratching my head) to get me some food because "me work up big hunger after much read"

I am just wondering.........if there is a split and recombination.......will there be some resistance on which to call the SBC and which to call Coosa? We all must admit that the SBC doesn't have that great of a "ring" to it on the national level, although I disagree (it's all just perception). We are considerred the "doormat" of collegiate 1-A football, whether wrong or right.

If a reshuffling occurs, will BOTH conferences get a "new" name?

Arkstfan · July 20, 2007

As long as the two "new" conferences are recognized as the legal successors of the Sun Belt and Conference (we overpaid the consultants for this name) USA by the NCAA and the BCS it doesn't matter what they are called. The Summit League is just the old Mid-Con, the Atlantic Sun the TAAC, the Horizon the old MCC, the Big 10's official name was Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives until 1987 even though it had been called the Big 10 (or Big 9) for 70 some odd years.

KAjunRaider · July 21, 2007

As long as the two "new" conferences are recognized as the legal successors of the Sun Belt and Conference (we overpaid the consultants for this name) USA by the NCAA and the BCS it doesn't matter what they are called. The Summit League is just the old Mid-Con, the Atlantic Sun the TAAC, the Horizon the old MCC, the Big 10's official name was Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives until 1987 even though it had been called the Big 10 (or Big 9) for 70 some odd years.

In the event of a reshuffling, and both conferences "do" change their names, is their a penalty, i.e. automatic bid for hoops, etc?

Arkstfan · July 21, 2007

In the event of a reshuffling, and both conferences "do" change their names, is their a penalty, i.e. automatic bid for hoops, etc?

Technically if you fall below the core numbers there is but in such an unusual circumstance a waiver would be almost automatic.

July 21, 2007

There is little doubt in my mind that all of the 21 universities that would be involved would not be better served in the long run by realigning the two conferences. For today, however, I see a lot of resistance regarding three of the institutions: Florida Atlantic, Florida International and Louisiana-Monroe.

The natural dividing line for these two conferences would be the Mississippi River. That would put 12 teams in the east and 9 in the west. One problem is that Tulane would be the only private school on the east side of the river. So it's more logical to put them with the three privates in the west, To keep the balance, the most plausible would be to swap Arkansas State and Tulane. Arkansas State has eastern schools Memphis and Middle Tennessee in moderate proximity and would be better than ULM, the next closest to the river.

Now the west would look like this:

UTEP

Tulsa

North Texas

SMU

Rice

Houston

Louisiana-Lafayette

Louisiana-Monroe

Tulane

Leaving in the east:

Arkansas State

Memphis

Southern Miss

Troy

UAB

Middle Tennessee

Western Kentucky

Marshall

East Carolina

UCF

Florida Atlantic

FIU

I think that all of the teams in the west except ULM can average 20,000 attendance and revenue of $15M in athletics except Louisiana-Monroe. Actually ULM might be able to meet that attendance criterion as long as the Arkansas deal remains. ULL might struggle to meet the revenue criterion.

The weak members in the east would be FAU, FIU and, for the moment, Western Kentucky. WKU has a history of supporting their athletic teams in other sports, especially basketball, and football should be no exception. I think that the eastern schools would be supportive of Western Kentucky but I'm concerned about the two southern Florida universities. Both are solid financially but weak in attendance; especially FAU. I hope that I'm wrong but I get the feeling that Southern Miss, Memphis, and East Carolina, especially, would be strongly opposed.

One drawback would be that the western teams (CUSA) have not played each other enough years for the basketball revenue share. The same would be true of the six Sun Belt teams in the east. Once those are met, then I'd see a tremendous savings on travel costs, some increased attendance and revenue, and better TV contracts and bowl alliances.

I think that the west would welcome Louisiana Tech. Even though they would prefer to not be in a conference with ULL, I think that this would be too attractive to pass up.

the real grad88 · July 21, 2007

There is little doubt in my mind that all of the 21 universities that would be involved would not be better served in the long run by realigning the two conferences. For today, however, I see a lot of resistance regarding three of the institutions: Florida Atlantic, Florida International and Louisiana-Monroe.
The natural dividing line for these two conferences would be the Mississippi River. That would put 12 teams in the east and 9 in the west. One problem is that Tulane would be the only private school on the east side of the river. So it's more logical to put them with the three privates in the west, To keep the balance, the most plausible would be to swap Arkansas State and Tulane. Arkansas State has eastern schools Memphis and Middle Tennessee in moderate proximity and would be better than ULM, the next closest to the river.
Now the west would look like this:
UTEP
Tulsa
North Texas
SMU
Rice
Houston
Louisiana-Lafayette
Louisiana-Monroe
Tulane
Leaving in the east:
Arkansas State
Memphis
Southern Miss
Troy
UAB
Middle Tennessee
Western Kentucky
Marshall
East Carolina
UCF
Florida Atlantic
FIU
I think that all of the teams in the west except ULM can average 20,000 attendance and revenue of $15M in athletics except Louisiana-Monroe. Actually ULM might be able to meet that attendance criterion as long as the Arkansas deal remains. ULL might struggle to meet the revenue criterion.
The weak members in the east would be FAU, FIU and, for the moment, Western Kentucky. WKU has a history of supporting their athletic teams in other sports, especially basketball, and football should be no exception. I think that the eastern schools would be supportive of Western Kentucky but I'm concerned about the two southern Florida universities. Both are solid financially but weak in attendance; especially FAU. I hope that I'm wrong but I get the feeling that Southern Miss, Memphis, and East Carolina, especially, would be strongly opposed.
One drawback would be that the western teams (CUSA) have not played each other enough years for the basketball revenue share. The same would be true of the six Sun Belt teams in the east. Once those are met, then I'd see a tremendous savings on travel costs, some increased attendance and revenue, and better TV contracts and bowl alliances.
I think that the west would welcome Louisiana Tech. Even though they would prefer to not be in a conference with ULL, I think that this would be too attractive to pass up.

How high do fuel costs have to get before these mid-major programs finally decide to put down egos and do what makes common sense. The idea presented above makes total common sense. I can't believe that Southern Miss really cares any more about playing Rice than they would the Florida schools. It really shouldn't matter. There are always going to be some teams in a conference in which there isn't a lot of attraction in terms of a real rivalry. The point is that we should all be playing schools that are closer to home, period. I don't care what the heck the final names of the conferences are called. That makes no difference. TV contracts and bowl tieins will have to be worked out any way with the new conferences, whatever they are called.

AnotherEagleFan · July 21, 2007

We keep talking about the bowl games..... How CUSA contracts are coming up and that they are going to lose some of the tie ins to the Sunbelt teams. This brings me to the question of who we are going to take to the game? Look at how many of our teams qualify for bowl games. Maybe in a good year 3 (with one of the teams only being .500).

When we talk about this we need to be realistic. We (the Sunbelt) have a long way to go to get those tie ins. I know that someone is reading this and thinking how to justify how the Sunbelt is better in football then CUSA. Fine... The bottome line is that we need more bowl games. That means that we need more teams to qualify year in and year out not just one year. I'm afraid that after last year we are a little too confident. The SMU game scares me. Ark st will go 0-3 against CUSA this year.

johnnylightnin · July 22, 2007

Names certainly mean something...if they didn't, CUSA wouldn't have the TV deal that they do. They were clearly the no. 3 non-AQ conference this year (in football), yet they have a better TV deal and better bowl tie-ins. I could see a new conference working, but securing bowl tie-ins is the key...that and the TV contract.

Oh, and Louisiana Tech fans wouldn't be nearly as strongly against being in a conference with ULL as they are against being in a conference with ULM.

Also, I don't think that CUSA member-relations are as strained as some here seem to think. The prime mover in any CUSA reshuffling will be the big east adding a football only school. It's getting closer. Before long, they'll likely cave and ECU. Then, TCU will have the right of first refusal...just because. They'll likely turn it down (foolishly, IMO) and then CUSA will look around to replace ECU. They could go with a western (read Texas) school and sent Tulane back to the east. It'll all depend on who's hot (facilities and performance wise) when the big east moves.

Green Mean · July 22, 2007

Since joining this board there has been a TON of conference realignment talks and I can seriously say that its just so much tired head.

My solution is this to each and every school out there including UNT.....WINNING cures everything. If you win and spend the money in your program thats needed to compete at any level and everything else will cure itself. Do Texas fans ever bitch about going to some bowl game in California or Florida, or hell even Toronto if they had to? Absolutely not. If your school consistently wins and you get your fans involved with the school and them coming to all of your sporting events then when the time for bowl games come up, no ones going to have a problem going anywhere.

I understand that the BCS conferences has really put a rope on every other school which has ultimately starting ideas that there needs to only be regional conferences now. But the BCS is life and the only way to try to alleviate that strain is to have your school consistently win and make other teams your absolute Bitch. Thats just what you have to do. If you do that, the fans will come in, support will come, donors will be in line, the athletic programs will prosper.

I guess I am trying to be a realist but all these ideas of realignment has really whipped me as of late and my only solution is this.....WIN WIN WIN.

July 22, 2007

Oh, and Louisiana Tech fans wouldn't be nearly as strongly against being in a conference with ULL as they are against being in a conference with ULM.

That was my typo and I apologize. Yes, I meant ULM. That's one reason why I like to use Louisiana when referring to the Lafayette school and ULM would mean Monroe. Louisiana Tech and Louisiana-Monroe are two 1-A universities competing in a small market and I think that LaTech just thinks it's easier to do it in separate conferences. In addition, Grambling, which is a pretty high-profile school for Division 1-AA, is also in that market. The Techsters do not have that disdain for Louisiana-Lafayette.

I wonder just how hard the Big East is looking for a 9th team. It was a no-brainer asking Notre Dame, who is already a member in all sports except football. That turndown was expected. Army and Navy said no. Why did they stop there? If they did think that ECU was worthy, then surely they would have made the offer. They've alread booted Temple, They won't ask Marshall according to reports from West Virginia. Unless they can lure Boston College back. I don't even think UCF would take a football only offer unless the Sun Belt would allow them membership in their other sports because I don't think that CUSA would. I wouldn't hold my breath.

johnnylightnin · July 22, 2007

I wonder just how hard the Big East is looking for a 9th team. It was a no-brainer asking Notre Dame, who is already a member in all sports except football. That turndown was expected. Army and Navy said no. Why did they stop there? If they did think that ECU was worthy, then surely they would have made the offer. They've alread booted Temple, They won't ask Marshall according to reports from West Virginia. Unless they can lure Boston College back. I don't even think UCF would take a football only offer unless the Sun Belt would allow them membership in their other sports because I don't think that CUSA would. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Yeah, the football only thing is the snag for UCF and Memphis. Either school would be a great addition, but the basketball schools won't vote for an additional all-sports member. If they add a football only, only the football schools vote. ECU is the natural football-only fit. They are a football school in a market that the Big East doesn't have a hold of. I think that after a year or two, the football members will demand an additional school. ECU is basically the only choice.

Arkstfan · July 22, 2007

Ark st will go 0-3 against CUSA this year.

Interesting prediction given that ASU beat Memphis at Memphis last year and gets the Tigers at Indian Stadium this year.

Arkstfan · July 22, 2007

There is little doubt in my mind that all of the 21 universities that would be involved would not be better served in the long run by realigning the two conferences. For today, however, I see a lot of resistance regarding three of the institutions: Florida Atlantic, Florida International and Louisiana-Monroe.
The natural dividing line for these two conferences would be the Mississippi River. That would put 12 teams in the east and 9 in the west. One problem is that Tulane would be the only private school on the east side of the river. So it's more logical to put them with the three privates in the west, To keep the balance, the most plausible would be to swap Arkansas State and Tulane. Arkansas State has eastern schools Memphis and Middle Tennessee in moderate proximity and would be better than ULM, the next closest to the river.

And when you look at bowls, it shakes out nicely.

West could have Fort Worth, Texas, and New Orleans without the need for the creation of a new bowl, that would be one bowl for every three members.

East could have Liberty, New Orleans, Mobile and Birmingham without the need for the creation of a new bowl, that would be one bowl for every three members.