Tulsa Prez: Realignment was Destructive

Harry · May 14, 2012

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/article.aspx?articleid=20120514_203_B1_TulsaP806599

NorthTexan95 · May 14, 2012

When you put college presidents in charge of college athletics ... stupid things happen. Now no one has the authority to govern the realignment process. I wish someone had the ability to limit conferences to within a distance or a region ... that might solve some of these issues and make regional conferences more appropriate.

meangreendork · May 14, 2012

The Tulsa president really points fingers at the NCAA AQ/BCS system. That system is really the cause of the conference realignment we just saw. But, he does sound like he's whining pretty hard about it, and that's a little bit much if you ask me.

forevereagle · May 14, 2012

And when AQ is gone, it means that five conferences will split the same money five ways instead of six. Not sure how the AQ removal is a good thing. It's not like CUSA or MWC (or the Big East) will have a better chance in the new system.

meangreendork · May 14, 2012

And when AQ is gone, it means that five conferences will split the same money five ways instead of six. Not sure how the AQ removal is a good thing. It's not like CUSA or MWC (or the Big East) will have a better chance in the new system.

One of the worst arguments for the AQ system is the tired, "If they run a tournament system, then a non-AQ school that may have done well in conference that's lost every game against AQ schools could go to the tournament and beat an AQ school with a better overall record."

And while I get that an AQ school with a better overall record ideally should win a tournament/bowl game with a non-AQ school, the counterpoint always comes down to competition. "If that AQ school is so good, it should win no matter who comes at them."

UNTDude · May 14, 2012

I can understand the disappointment of loosing their natural rival SMU. On the other hand there is no doubt Lane Rawlins is thrilled with the effects of recent conference realignments.

DallasGreen · May 14, 2012

Nothing short of a 16 team tournament using the bowls as playoff sites proves a legit national championship. I also favor only conference champions being participants. Even in the present system, teams that finish worse than 3rd in ANY conference should not be bowl game participants, and no I do not think there are too many bowls or else there wouldn't be quality teams like WKU in 2011 that are left out every year.

GrandGreen · May 14, 2012

Tulsa president like most of remaining CUSA fans fill that a great disservice has been done to their programs. Losing Houston, UCF, SMU, Memphis and replacing them with the unworthy. Obviously, the presidents voted in the new Universities and thus I fail to see why they are so disappointed with any of the choices.

Just like the jilted Belt members who feel some how betrayed by the schools leaving, it is the same in CUSA. Tulsa is a tiny school who has done very well considering in college athletes. I always like the privates who play up academics compared to other schools but basically recruit the same players everyone else does.

This is not the English soccer league were the bottom teams are replaced, and the winning teams moved up. There are lots of factors involved. The ones that are losing ground are somewhat rightly bemoaning the emphasis on markets and potential more than historical performance. They ignore that most of the current athletic hierarchy is based on factors that occurred fifty to a hundred years ago. No one at Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas, Notre Dame, etc. had anything to go with schools being in the top tier of athletics. They may have contributed to the colleges maintaining those positions and how they are placed in the upper category but not getting them there.

The current realignments are moving away from that historical placement of teams and if nothing else are giving a few of the lower class citizens of college sports who happen to have the right demographics a chance to move up.

golfingomez · May 14, 2012

The Tulsa president really points fingers at the NCAA AQ/BCS system. That system is really the cause of the conference realignment we just saw. But, he does sound like he's whining pretty hard about it, and that's a little bit much if you ask me.

I would say back when the NCAA lost the power of TV contracts is really the cause of the realignments... it happened back in the late 80s early 90s... but only now are we understanding what that meant

oldguystudent · May 14, 2012

I would say back when the NCAA lost the power of TV contracts is really the cause of the realignments... it happened back in the late 80s early 90s... but only now are we understanding what that meant

I don't know if there's a correlation our not, but I recently looked at the college football standings in 1990. The number of independent teams was astounding.

Edited May 14, 2012 by oldguystudent

PlummMeanGreen · May 14, 2012

I believe it was OU and Georgia who started this whole damn TV nightmare back post ice-age.

GMG!

VideoEagle · May 14, 2012

I believe it was OU and Georgia who started this whole damn TV nightmare back post ice-age.

GMG!

Ding ding ding! You are correct. OU and Georgia suited the NCAA over selling exclusive rights to NBC back in 1981.

UNTflyer · May 14, 2012

Let's be honest, C-USA was not going to upgrade. Nobody was going to leave the Big East, SEC, or Big 12 to move to C-USA.

Tulsa should thank their stars that C-USA didn't fall apart around them and leave them out to dry like NM State or Idaho. While Tulsa may have a high opinion of itself, it is a small school in a media market the size of Schenectady... AND with two large competing fanbases of Big 12 state universities.

YOU'RE WELCOME, Mr. Upham.

Edited May 14, 2012 by UNTflyer

The Fake Lonnie Finch · May 14, 2012

AND with two large competing fanbases of Big 12 state universities.

YOU'RE WELCOME, Mr. Upham.

...throw in the many Arkansas fans up there as well. Plenty of Razorback fans in the NE Oklahoma area.

Tulsa damn near droppped down to I-AA while I was in law school there. They should be happy that Kragthorpe resurrected the football program and made them at least a little relevant.

Look, Tulsa is sore because they began winning, yet that counted for very little. We'd be just as frustrated, I'm sure, if the tables were turned and we had been in C-USA for several years, saw three bowl-playing schools leave, then had to replace them with Sun Belters and start ups.

So...

...the only thing to do is kick their whiny asses the next time we play them to help them understand we're as good or better than the schools that left.

shaft · May 15, 2012

Seems like a bit of a whine. Yes Tulsa and SMU have been in the same conference for 16 years. But its not like Rice losing their historic littermate in Houston.

And Tulsa didn't have any problem leaving the WAC and accepting their share of the $25 million the departing CUSA schools are leaving on the table and the $8 million the new members are buying in with.

And while sobs stories abound of the "unfairness" of the BCS, its not like Tulsa ever sniffed a BCS bid, but got left out.

Edited May 15, 2012 by shaft