Tulsa Fans discuss Realignment

Harry · April 27, 2012

Read more: http://tulsa.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=1774&tid=154688676&mid=154688676&sid=1115&style=2

GrayEagle · April 27, 2012

The consensus seems to be that CUSA is weaker (true) and that the MWC is much stronger than the realigned Conference USA (false). Based on all-time football rankings the two leagues are about the same but on just last year's rankings CUSA averages 67 while the MWC averages 80. Conference USA is far more populous with much better TV markets. MWC has a distinct advantage in basketball but that's their only advantage.

Of course, neither conference can lose the caliber of teams that they did and expect to remain as strong but there is a nucleus of good teams to keep both conferences capable of building back to their former strength.

These figures are based on ten team conferences with UTEP and Utah State added in the west and North Texas, FIU and Louisiana added in the east.

Edited April 27, 2012 by GrayEagle

MeanGreenTexan · April 27, 2012

They're verbalizing what I was already thinking.

MWC is a better conference than CUSA.

I won't be upset that we're moving to CUSA, because it is a serious upgrade, but I'm still holding out hope that maybe we'll be moving to the MWC.

PlummMeanGreen · April 27, 2012

The consensus seems to be that CUSA is weaker (true) and that the MWC is much stronger than the realigned Conference USA (false). Based on all-time football rankings the two leagues are about the same but on just last year's rankings CUSA averages 67 while the MWC averages 80. Conference USA is far more populous with much better TV markets. MWC has a distinct advantage in basketball but that's their only advantage.

Of course, neither conference can lose the caliber of teams that they did and expect to remain as strong but there is a nucleus of good teams to keep both conferences capable of building back to their former strength.

These figures are based on ten team conferences with UTEP and Utah State added in the west and North Texas, FIU and Louisiana added in the east.

Somehow, Jack, I feel that the MWC Commish (Thompson) has at this point trumped CUSA Commish' Banowsky with all this "Alliance" talk (facade?) business. Hope I am wrong and that we are talking more a blended schedule and league, but I think the Alliance was a Thompson brainchild of an idea created out of initial panic until he could get his conference solid again. Seems he has succeeded thus far. I personnally am not happy about CUSA losing a Texas school to his league at all...... if that is the case.

GMG!

DeepGreen · April 27, 2012

I personnally am not happy about CUSA losing a Texas school to his league at all...... if that is the case.

GMG!

Same here. I really wanted UNT to join CUSA with UTEP, Rice, and Tulsa. At least a couple of Texas schools would be involved.

Chrisattsu · April 27, 2012

I know that you guys have been opposed to going west again, but one of the Tulsa fans preferred a MWC-East to CUSA-West. Would you be opposed to a region which includes the Front Range schools?

CUSA WEST

Rice

Tulane

La. Tech

UNT

UTSA or MTSU

Tulsa

or MWC EAST

UTEP

New Mexico

Colorado St.

Air Force

Wyoming

Tulsa

Are you still excited about your move to CUSA if Tulsa and UTEP bolt for MWC?

With Tulsa gone you could see -

Rice

Tulane

La. Tech

UNT

UTSA

MUTS

Edited April 27, 2012 by Chrisattsu

Green Mean · April 27, 2012

Are you still excited about your move to CUSA if Tulsa and UTEP bolt for MWC?

Yes because overall CUSA would still be the better overall conference and it would clearly still have a much better perception. Getting into CUSA and/or MWC would be a win-win situation regardless.

GreenFlag · April 27, 2012

The big question is whether CUSA and the MWC are working together with good intentions. I have heard Thompson is not to be trusted.

I have said all along this thing might not end up exactly as we had hoped. I can see us in CUSA with no UTEP or Tulsa. I can also see us ending up in the MWC. Man, this stuff is crazy.

I can't blame Tulsa fans for not being happy. We just need about 5 years with these guys in a conference to show them we are actually a better replacement than SMU was as a conference partner. Our BB program is light years better and the pieces are in place to finally getting the FB prgram up to speed. In their time in CUSA, SMU was a sub par (ok I'll say it, downright crappy) FB and BB partner. Only in the last few years did they turn it around in FB.

We need to be positioning ourselves for the next "airport meeting" and I think we are. I think the Tulsa relationship is very, very important.

GrandGreen · April 27, 2012

The grass is always greener somewhere else. Tulsa has never been in a western conference, there are a lot of issues that these fans are not mentioning; less national coverage, more travel and cost, and no close rivals. It may make some sense for football but very little when you start sending volleyball and softball teams to Wyoming and Nevada. The same reasons I don't want NT in the MWC. Obviously, if more regional teams were in the MWC, it would be more appealing.

Currently, there is not that much difference in the two leagues in football strength but there wouldn't be a game that local NT fans could reasonably drive to in the MWC. We thank of NT being an outer team in the Belt, NT closest rival would likely be UTEP and Colorado State. Drives to Tulsa, Tulane, Rice and probably La Tech are relatively easy in comparison.

edit:: They were in the WAC, but with a lot of regional teams at that time, in fact more than currently exist in CUSA

Edited April 27, 2012 by GrandGreen

GreenFlag · April 27, 2012

The grass is always greener somewhere else. Tulsa has never been in a western conference, there are a lot of issues that these fans are not mentioning; less national coverage, more travel and cost, and no close rivals. It may make some sense for football but very little when you start sending volleyball and softball teams to Wyoming and Nevada. The same reasons I don't want NT in the MWC. Obviously, if more regional teams were in the MWC, it would be more appealing.

Currently, there is not that much difference in the two leagues in football strength but there wouldn't be a game that local NT fans could reasonably drive to in the MWC. We thank of NT being an outer team in the Belt, NT closest rival would likely be UTEP and Colorado State. Drives to Tulsa, Tulane, Rice and probably La Tech are relatively easy in comparison.

They were in the WAC. Some of their more seasoned fans remember what an improvement it was to move to CUSA.

UNTflyer · April 27, 2012

I know that you guys have been opposed to going west again, but one of the Tulsa fans preferred a MWC-East to CUSA-West. Would you be opposed to a region which includes the Front Range schools?

I oppose any proposal that includes an FCS school.

UNTflyer · April 27, 2012

Yes because overall CUSA would still be the better overall conference and it would clearly still have a much better perception. Getting into CUSA and/or MWC would be a win-win situation regardless.

No, because losing those teams would mean we are just basically in Sun Belt 2.0, and sometimes a new version is just as bad (or worse) as the old version.

Would a CUSA roster of Sun Belt teams plus UTSA and Texas State be desirable? Hell no.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · April 27, 2012

They were in the WAC. Some of their more seasoned fans remember what an improvement it was to move to CUSA.

WAC, 1996-2004

Tulsa had one winning season during their nine seasons in the WAC - 2003, Kragthorpe's first season at the helm.

In old WAC, Tulsa faced, at one time or another, BYU, Utah, Fresno State, TCU, and Hawaii.

They actually played some good teams back then who were pretty competitive - TCU, Fresno State, and Hawaii all had excellent season back then. TCU began their surge with Franchione in the WAC. Fresno State as well under Hill. Hawaii under June Junes.

The WAC wasn't always horrible back then...which is why Tulsa had only one winning season in nine.

GrayEagle · April 27, 2012

Why is the MWC considered superior to CUSA? Certainly not because of football. Last year was horrible for teams that will be in the MWC this coming year. Wyoming, at #50, was the best that they had last year. Southern Miss, Tulsa and Louisiana Tech all had a better ranking. They do not have the TV markets that CUSA will have. All-time ranking and average attendance are virtually equal. The Mountain West has the largest average revenue due to UNLV's outlandish $56M budget and Louisiana Tech's small budget of $15M; otherwise there is little difference.

The MWC would be vastly superior if basketball drove the bus but we all know that while basketball is important, football rules the roost.

The Mountain West may be viewed as better because they once had Brigham Young, TCU, Utah, Boise State and San Diego State but they are gone and there is parity between the two conferences now.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · April 27, 2012

"According to C-USA board Price said UTEP was leaving. Hard to believe that we've won way more conference championships than any other school and no one wants us."

Tulsa fan, Tulsa fan, Tulsa fan.

It's only partially about winning - like 3%. The other 97% is money.

Not really sure why TU fans are clamoring to join the MWC. To me, it's kind of a push, MWC or C-USA. Neither are going to be dominant once the Big East takes their best/richest schools.

Which will suck less? It's hard to tell. I actually don't think the Sun Belt will be any more or less competitive than the MWC or C-USA once all the moves are made. The only difference is in the TV contract payoffs. Competitively, it'll be a toss up.

Edited April 27, 2012 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

GreenFlag · April 27, 2012

WAC, 1996-2004

Tulsa had one winning season during their nine seasons in the WAC - 2003, Kragthorpe's first season at the helm.

In old WAC, Tulsa faced, at one time or another, BYU, Utah, Fresno State, TCU, and Hawaii.

They actually played some good teams back then who were pretty competitive - TCU, Fresno State, and Hawaii all had excellent season back then. TCU began their surge with Franchione in the WAC. Fresno State as well under Hill. Hawaii under June Junes.

The WAC wasn't always horrible back then...which is why Tulsa had only one winning season in nine.

I guess I should have finished - improvement in travel and regionalism. I didn't mean from a competitive stand point. Carry on.

GrandGreen · April 27, 2012

I agree that CUSA and/or MWC are not going to be that much better than the Belt in 2013 but that distance will widen over time. Perception rules and CUSA will have a distinct advantage over the Belt in resources and recruiting. Also for many years to come, if a Belt team dominates; they are likely to leave for CUSA at the first opportunity.

CUSA is a shadow of itself; but is and likely will remain a step up from the Belt and MAC. Despite all you read on the Belt board, there is not a school in the Belt that wouldn't jump at a chance for inclusion in CUSA. A lot of sour grapes over there, they state that losing NT and FIU will be addition by subtraction and GA St and whoever they bring in will quickly better the league. I understand the feelings but what they don't seem to grasp is that if an UTSA or Ga ST becomes a big success that they won't be in the Belt long.

NTXCoog · April 27, 2012

"According to C-USA board Price said UTEP was leaving. Hard to believe that we've won way more conference championships than any other school and no one wants us."

Tulsa fan, Tulsa fan, Tulsa fan.

It's only partially about winning - like 3%. The other 97% is money.

I'm curious what sport or conference Tulsa fan is talking about. They've won 1 CUSA football championship. Of the CUSA schools remaining in conference: USM has won 4 CUSA titles (and shared 1). ECU has won 2. Tulane has won 1.

Maybe they meant division titles. Maybe they meant sports other than football. Maybe they included Missouri Valley titles. But they sure haven't won more CUSA football conference championships than any other school

The Fake Lonnie Finch · April 27, 2012

They mean in all sports...most of which, no one pays any attention to...as they are discovering.

Since, they've joined the conference in 2005, football = 2 ECU, 2 UCF, 1 USM, 1 Tulsa, 1 Houston.

Playing for the title, football, since they joined:

West: Tulsa 3, Houston, 3, SMU 1

East: UCF 3, ECU 2, USM 2

It's not exactly like the Big 12 that Oklahoma has more or less owned, given a slip here and there...and, that after the league got a head start on OU during the John Blake years of 96-98:

OU - 8 appearances, 7 wins

NU - 6, 2

UT - 5, 3

CU - 4, 1

KSU - 3, 1

A&M - 2, 1

MU - 2, 0

2011, no more Big 12 title game - Oklahoma State finally wins a title.

Tally for the old conference snobs:

Former Big 8 schools, 12 titles

Former SWC schools, 4 titles

NTXCoog · April 27, 2012

They mean in all sports...most of which, no one pays any attention to...as they are discovering.

I would have guessed that. A school should be proud of its accomplishments regardless of sport. UH has won 16 golf championships, second only to Yale (with their last championship in 1943). That's something Coog fans are proud of. But if you're talking sports championships and realignment, the only ones that really matter are football with basketball a distant second.

And as was mentioned eariler, championships don't matter much either for realignment. What you can bring to the conference moneywise is more important than championships.