Why not C-USA? Why not?

[Harry]

I don't get why you couldn't offer a solution for the old C-USA schools to come back.

Let's assume - Cincy and UConn either get a Big East invite for basketball and non revenue sports. And ultimately go B10 or ACC...

And Boise and SDSU go back to the Mountain West where they belong.

South Florida could end up going to the ACC if Big 12 poaches Florida State...

That leaves Houston, UCF, SMU, Memphis, Tulane, East Carolina. Six schools.

C-USA is set to be at 14 teams in 2015...but why not go to 20? What exactly is the reason you couldn't have a 20 team conference?

Put UCF, East Carolina and Memphis in the north/east, Houston SMU and Tulane in the south/west.

I came across a discussion of this idea here (http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/messages/chrono/40139487/0/0/40144059#ID40144059) but to paraphrase:

"You could divide that into 4 divisions, south, north, east, and west. Then you have the North play the West one year and then you get the division champion from the North/West play the champion fro the South/East. You can change this up each year in a round robin format. That way no team goes 2-years without playing another team in the league.. It mixes things up, allows for geographic rivals to grow and builds interest as the season progresses with a mini playoff to determine who the best team is."

I know people will look at this and say Harry that's the WAC and the WAC didn't work -- but as Arkstfan has pointed out the WAC could never manage the scheduling correctly and you had teams flying all over the country instead of focusing on opponents in their own region. If you break this into 4 quadrants you could make it easy for fans to get to most all of the games.

Others will say there are too many mouths to feed but I would argue that the TV money will be fairly equal amongst the 5 have nots.

We have to start thinking outside the box. We're never going to be able to come up with a smaller "best of the rest" conference because everyone in that conference has their bags packed to hit the road the minute the money man comes calling. I think this type of 20-team model gives you the excitement of the FCS playoff system with a BCS bowl carrot for the winner. And it involves enough teams that it provides us stability if there are defections. And I promise you this, whichever team gets to the BCS bowl from this configuration will be a darling of the media and college football fans.

[mgfan]

Or drop odu, mtsu, fau, uncc abs go from there keep us and fiu

[PlummMeanGreen]

Harry, because SMU and Houston don't think like we do.

Those 2 schools are forever jaded (and most bitter) becaue the SWC imploded and they were never given a consideration for the Big 12 so their take is to take it out; that is, take it out on those of whom they deem lesser. Just my observation of both those schools after about 40 years of observing UH (who was my first college team to support as a youth growing up in the Houston area) and observing SMU the same since transferring to UNT in January of 1973. (What you say, Harry, makes too much sense for it to ever happen in the senseless NCAA of today, though).

GMG!

Edited December 16, 2012 by PlummMeanGreen

[North Texas Shep]

Harry, because SMU and Houston don't think like we do.

Those 2 schools are forever jaded (and most bitter) becaue the SWC imploded and they were never given a consideration for the Big 12 so their take is to take it out; that is, take it out on those of whom they deem lesser. Just my observation of both those schools after about 40 years of observing UH (who was my first college team to support as a youth growing up in the Houston area) and observing SMU the same since transferring to UNT in January of 1973. (What you say, Harry, makes too much sense for it to ever happen in the senseless NCAA of today, though).

GMG!

All the schools that were left out of the SWC split up will always be jaded. Well, except for TCU. I wish Houston and SMU would be smart and come back to CUSA. The more Texas schools the better. It will never happen though. The Big East has a BCS bid for now and that is all they care about.

[GrayEagle]

When the talk of a combined Mountain West/CUSA was in its heyday, there was a proposal for 20 teams. That works better than the 16 teams of the old WAC. Four sections of five formed into two divisions (10) divided geographically. Play four in you section every year, two in the other section of your division, and one in each section in the other division. The template works. If SMU and Houston don't want to come back then consider teams from the Belt or the MAC if they can meet set standards. Deposed teams from the Big East would also be welcome. The atmosphere would be different. It wouldn't be the same old conference that they left.

[Arkstfan]

The WAC problem was two-fold

Problem #1 was scheduling. They wanted their regional rivals because of ticket sales. Fans in Fort Collins cared more about playing Utah or New Mexico than Tulsa or San Jose. Plus the old WAC schools mostly traveled pretty well meaning that they sold a lot of the tickets your fans didn't sell.

Problem #2. The MWC 8 understood that not every school has an identical television value. They walked away from the WAC16 and secured a TV deal that was nearly identical to the one they left behind. That money split 8 ways rather than 16 produced more value.

If you look at the SEC. Without question, Ole Miss, Miss St, Vandy and Kentucky aren't bringing as much TV value as TAMU, Mizzou, LSU, Florida. But the number is so big and the history and traditional ties are so strong, no one is advocating booting those four. Arkansas struggles at times to sell their Little Rock game out, there is a reason they play Ole Miss and Miss State there. They eat up a good piece of the 8,000 ticket visitor allotment that the SEC mandates. Tennessee likes going to Vandy and UK because they can play a road game where their fans can negate home field most years.

In a 20 team league it doesn't take long for someone to figure the numbers up and realize they can go to 9, 10, or 12 with the right schools and get basically the same money and split it fewer ways.

[Arkstfan]

When the talk of a combined Mountain West/CUSA was in its heyday, there was a proposal for 20 teams. That works better than the 16 teams of the old WAC. Four sections of five formed into two divisions (10) divided geographically. Play four in you section every year, two in the other section of your division, and one in each section in the other division. The template works. If SMU and Houston don't want to come back then consider teams from the Belt or the MAC if they can meet set standards. Deposed teams from the Big East would also be welcome. The atmosphere would be different. It wouldn't be the same old conference that they left.

What standard can you set that the current members can make?

We all know what the attendance looks like at FIU and FAU.

I hope we all know that reported budget figures tend to be bogus because some schools avoid state regulators by funneling some athletic functions like sports information and fund-raising through "academic" offices.

Commitment is hard to assess. One school might produce $15 million a year by hitting students for $250 a semester. That indicates nothing but a willingness of the school to collect money via student loan debt and let someone else pay it off.

FIU and FAU might look committed because of that debt shift but how many tickets do they sell, how many dollars do they get donated.

I don't think you can create a meaningful standard and apply it to the current membership.

[gksmith]

Wouldn't 20 team conference start messing with schedules too much?

2 divisions of 10 means you play 9 games in division, no one from the other division and only 3 OOC games. SEC has 16 and they had to remove some of the "play teams in the opposite division" game (which benifited Georgia because they did not have to play Alabama till the championship game, or LSU) and keep 4 OOC games.

[casual fan]

What happens when the big BCS bowl carrot is gone after next year? $$$ become a huge issue as they dry up. Houston's attendance fell last year as they reported tickets that were passed out (27,286) not the real attendance. smu's attendance is....well...sucks an egg. smu's nose is too stuck up to ever admit they made a mistake or return to CUSA. However Houston might look for a friendly place to land. Our disdain for UTSA or Tx St drives me crazy. What about building regonial rivalries and filling stadiums? How about a CUSA that looks like this:

West......................EAST

UNT..................... Marshall
Houston................UNC Charlotte
Rice.......................Old Dominion
Tulsa..................... MT
UTEP.....................FIU
UTSA ....................Southern Miss
Lousiana Tech ......FAU

Tulane or Tx St......UAB

You want something bigger and better for UNT? Can CUSA be a stepping stone to that place? Then we need 2 things on a consistent basis: wins and an always packed stadium. Do that and other conferences will notice.

Edited December 16, 2012 by casual fan

[GL2Greatness]

1. the members of this forum need to get over the idea that just because you believe something is better for SMU or UH or anyone else that is actually better for them

2. you need to step into the reality that other programs look out of their own best interest first, second and third and if they bother to look out for someone else it will only be because it is best for them

3. TCU did very well in a conference with few if any other Texas teams and it was because TCU invested in their own program and they looked out for their own program instead of worrying about what others were doing. TCU even left behind their long time rival SMU because they felt they could do better in a different situation and they did better in that situation. Not every kid that lives in Texas is from Texas anymore and not every kid that is from Texas is interested in traveling to Houston 2 times, the dfw metromess 2 times, UTEP, and SA VS getting to see the east coast or the west coast....sure players are pretty much busy while they are on the road for a game, but at least they can say they have been somewhere else VS going around texas over and over and many of them might have already traveled all over Texas already for HS football or family trips ect.

4. the mega-CUSA would actually be as large as 26 teams and 22 teams (not 20) even if the teams that will probably have a chance to leave do leave

Cincy UConn

Boise SDSU

Temple USF

UH, SMU, Memphis, UCF, ECU, Tulane

UAB, USM, Tulsa, UTEP, Marshall, Rice

north Texas, FIU, UTSA, LaTech

FAU MTSU

UNCC ODU

that is 26 damn teams and even if UConn and Cincy and SDSU and Boise can find other homes Temple and USF are probably not going anywhere and even if Temple can go to the MAC that leaves the awesome 21 team conference......how is that going to work out for scheduling.....it is not it is going to suck

and if UConn and Cincy and SDSU and Boise leave or find a new home that is 4 teams that most want to be associated with.......who in the hell wants to be with 21 teams especially when many of them completely suck.......that would be the least stable conference on the face of the planet

5. the CUSA has a contract with poor money for 12 teams.....that contract flat sucks for 21-26 teams.....a collection of amature old folks home football teams could get better money than the CUSA contract for 12 divided by 21+ teams

and as Troy Aikmen says....get real....if you think there is going to be some renegotiation to the CUSA contract even if they managed to add 50 teams....the ink is barely dry on that contract, the CUSA can't get out of it and ESPN has no interest in paying more money to that collection of teams period

and the reality is where was the big new "look in" opened up SEC contract.....oh yea that never happened did it.....I have not even seen where ESPN and CBS gave them ore oney for adding TAMU and MU to equalize the money....they probably did, but they for sure did not have the SEC exercise any type of "look in" and open it up for huge new money.......same with the ACC.....the ACC contract is as fresh as the CUSA contract and again they have not reopened it for anything new and in fact it is still so "not good" that teams like MARYLAND are GTFO to go to the Big 10 because they will make better money even paying 50 million to leave

the PAC 12 did not get a "new deal" because they added 2 teams they got a new deal because their old deal was finished and the reason their new deal was so "big" was not because they added two teams it was because their old deal was so crappy and their new deal is also back loaded and came with the expense of teams buying back 3rd tier rights.....and no one has any idea what their deal would have been with only 10 teams and USC and UCLA had enough concerns about the new deal with 12 teams they had an agreement in place to be copensated by the other teams if the deal did not meet particular metrics

the only reason the Big 12 got a new deal now is because their deal with ESPN was up in 2015 and ESPN did not want to run the risk of the Big 12 going on the open market....the second part of that deal with Fox was basically kept the same and only the time period on it was adjusted to match the ESPN first tier new deal

so the concept that ANY conference has reopened an agreement for huge new money because they have added teams is not reality and the bigger reality is that will not be happening for a 21+ team CUSA filled with moveups and Sunbelt teams

6. a conference with 6 Texas teams will never work and it will be a disaster especially for at least 2 or 3 of those teams if not more....the SWC did not work as an all Texas league, TCU did better on their own without other Texas teams and even UTEP was doing better in the WAC without a ton of toher Texas teams

it will be a big enough disaster to get on TV in a conference that goes against the ACC, SEC, Big 12, Big 10, Sunbelt and MAC for TV time then you add in you are going against 20+ other teams for TV time in your own conference and you have a disaster.....then you as a Texas team would be going against 5 other teams just to get regional TV time....so anytime two of those other Texas teams are playing each other VS your team playing someone from out of state you can pretty much forget being on TV even regionally in Texas and then you still have the 6 other Texas teams (5 of which are in the Big 12 or SEC) to worry about takign TV slots

and even if TxState does horrible in the Sunbelt at least their fans will not be faced with 4/5 weeks of going to work and hearing about having their ass beat by one of their "Texas Rivals" ......and that is exactly what will happen to at least a couple of Texas teams in a conference with 6 Texas teams.....eventually at least 2 of those teams if not more will sift to the bottom and they will never climb back out......you will have ZERO to offer a recruit other than come here and get your ass kicked by at least 4 or 5 other Texas teams week in and week out and probably a bunch of other beat downs as well

rivalries are not made by 1-5 north Texas VS 0-6 UTEP and that crap surely does not get in TV either and over time when a program has "we are in the CUSA" to offer and "we play in Texas a lot" and 5 other teams have "we are in CUSA" and "we play in Texas a lot" and a few of those teams can mix in "we win more than we lose especially against other Texas teams" you will see recruits either look to go where they win or to go elsewhere (like out of state)

7. more reality.....GMG members laugh at how crappy the BE will be and yet they seem to be dying to get at least some of those "crappy members" back into a conference with north Texas (and a TON of other even crappier teams)

only a fool would go into the CUSA with 21+ teams (and many of them looking to GTFO) ESPECIALLY when the football teams currently in the BE are 100% in control of their own destiny....they have weathered the storm of autobid issues according to all reports....the BB schools are goign away to form a new conference.....so the BE stays together and keeps the autobid and the BB schools are the ones concerned with getting an NCAA waiver.....so that is taken care of.....and the FB schools still have the ability to ask others to join them and most importantly they have the ability to negotiate a new contract because theirs is open now.....and if you think that the BE FB members will get some crappy TV contract.....what in the hell makes you think those schools + a bunch of crap in the CUSA (with a brand new poor TV contract) and some move ups is suddenly going to break that contract and get MORE money

there are teams that bring some type of value and those that eat at the food bowl....UH, SMU, Memphis, UCF, USF, Temple, ECU, and Tulane along with Boise and SDSU (and UConn nad Cincy if the stay and so far no one else is calling) are 12 teams that will bring a hell of a lot more value than what the CUSA is tossing out there.....and that is just a proven fact because that was the collection of teams that in the CUSA brought more value than the collection of former Sunblet teams brought when they were in the belt

and teams like USM, UTEP, Tulsa, and even Rice would jump in a heart beat to join those teams....and that is pretty much the old CUSA.....while the new CUSA is a collection of half belt teams and some moveups.....and half the belt teams and some moveups should get a TV contract about equal to the other half of the belt teams and their moveups......which is terrible.....so the half of the belt teams and their moveups that are in CUSA should be glad the CUSA has a TV contract that was negotiated before they were around.....and the BE filled with CUSA teams that were around when the CUSA deal was negotiated + Boise and USF and some others should be able to do better than they did before if only slightly.....and of course they will do a hell of a lot better than they would with 21-26 teams eating a meal made for 12

as it is now the BE has 12 teams that kick the crap out of the 14 the CUSA will end up with and even if the BE loses UConn and Cincy they can easily poach the two best (or more) from the CUSA and they have the ability to structure a much better TV deal for that potential occurance

those BE FB teams have all the control they need.....they have the autobids for themselves and it is the BB schools issues to get theirs for the new conference.....they can sell the BE name to those schools......they can sell the ability for the BB schools to leave early (even if for cheap) once the FB schools get things settled and they most importantly have the ability to decide who they will be conference mates with VS reverting to what would be 21-26 teams they want nothing to do with

UH, SMU, Memphis, UCF, ECU, and Tulane and every other program out there (sans apparently one) are going to continue to look out for their own best interest period and that does not involve hooking up with a huge bunch of schools they care nothing about or being in a conference with a half a dozen other Texas teams so they have nothing to differentiate themselves with and the CUSA TV deal is going to stay the same until it ends many years from now and the BE football teams (and whoever else they add or subtract) will almost certainly beat that deal even if for the fact that they have more experience to look at about how to craft a deal in light of what is happening with conference additions and subtractions and more so because they are a much more attractive collection of teams VS adding themselves to the 21-26 team CUSA

[ntmeangreen11]

1. the members of this forum need to get over the idea that just because you believe something is better for SMU or UH or anyone else that is actually better for them

2. you need to step into the reality that other programs look out of their own best interest first, second and third and if they bother to look out for someone else it will only be because it is best for them

3. TCU did very well in a conference with few if any other Texas teams and it was because TCU invested in their own program and they looked out for their own program instead of worrying about what others were doing. TCU even left behind their long time rival SMU because they felt they could do better in a different situation and they did better in that situation. Not every kid that lives in Texas is from Texas anymore and not every kid that is from Texas is interested in traveling to Houston 2 times, the dfw metromess 2 times, UTEP, and SA VS getting to see the east coast or the west coast....sure players are pretty much busy while they are on the road for a game, but at least they can say they have been somewhere else VS going around texas over and over and many of them might have already traveled all over Texas already for HS football or family trips ect.

4. the mega-CUSA would actually be as large as 26 teams and 22 teams (not 20) even if the teams that will probably have a chance to leave do leave

Cincy UConn

Boise SDSU

Temple USF

UH, SMU, Memphis, UCF, ECU, Tulane

UAB, USM, Tulsa, UTEP, Marshall, Rice

north Texas, FIU, UTSA, LaTech

FAU MTSU

UNCC ODU

that is 26 damn teams and even if UConn and Cincy and SDSU and Boise can find other homes Temple and USF are probably not going anywhere and even if Temple can go to the MAC that leaves the awesome 21 team conference......how is that going to work out for scheduling.....it is not it is going to suck

and if UConn and Cincy and SDSU and Boise leave or find a new home that is 4 teams that most want to be associated with.......who in the hell wants to be with 21 teams especially when many of them completely suck.......that would be the least stable conference on the face of the planet

5. the CUSA has a contract with poor money for 12 teams.....that contract flat sucks for 21-26 teams.....a collection of amature old folks home football teams could get better money than the CUSA contract for 12 divided by 21+ teams

and as Troy Aikmen says....get real....if you think there is going to be some renegotiation to the CUSA contract even if they managed to add 50 teams....the ink is barely dry on that contract, the CUSA can't get out of it and ESPN has no interest in paying more money to that collection of teams period

and the reality is where was the big new "look in" opened up SEC contract.....oh yea that never happened did it.....I have not even seen where ESPN and CBS gave them ore oney for adding TAMU and MU to equalize the money....they probably did, but they for sure did not have the SEC exercise any type of "look in" and open it up for huge new money.......same with the ACC.....the ACC contract is as fresh as the CUSA contract and again they have not reopened it for anything new and in fact it is still so "not good" that teams like MARYLAND are GTFO to go to the Big 10 because they will make better money even paying 50 million to leave

the PAC 12 did not get a "new deal" because they added 2 teams they got a new deal because their old deal was finished and the reason their new deal was so "big" was not because they added two teams it was because their old deal was so crappy and their new deal is also back loaded and came with the expense of teams buying back 3rd tier rights.....and no one has any idea what their deal would have been with only 10 teams and USC and UCLA had enough concerns about the new deal with 12 teams they had an agreement in place to be copensated by the other teams if the deal did not meet particular metrics

the only reason the Big 12 got a new deal now is because their deal with ESPN was up in 2015 and ESPN did not want to run the risk of the Big 12 going on the open market....the second part of that deal with Fox was basically kept the same and only the time period on it was adjusted to match the ESPN first tier new deal

so the concept that ANY conference has reopened an agreement for huge new money because they have added teams is not reality and the bigger reality is that will not be happening for a 21+ team CUSA filled with moveups and Sunbelt teams

6. a conference with 6 Texas teams will never work and it will be a disaster especially for at least 2 or 3 of those teams if not more....the SWC did not work as an all Texas league, TCU did better on their own without other Texas teams and even UTEP was doing better in the WAC without a ton of toher Texas teams

it will be a big enough disaster to get on TV in a conference that goes against the ACC, SEC, Big 12, Big 10, Sunbelt and MAC for TV time then you add in you are going against 20+ other teams for TV time in your own conference and you have a disaster.....then you as a Texas team would be going against 5 other teams just to get regional TV time....so anytime two of those other Texas teams are playing each other VS your team playing someone from out of state you can pretty much forget being on TV even regionally in Texas and then you still have the 6 other Texas teams (5 of which are in the Big 12 or SEC) to worry about takign TV slots

and even if TxState does horrible in the Sunbelt at least their fans will not be faced with 4/5 weeks of going to work and hearing about having their ass beat by one of their "Texas Rivals" ......and that is exactly what will happen to at least a couple of Texas teams in a conference with 6 Texas teams.....eventually at least 2 of those teams if not more will sift to the bottom and they will never climb back out......you will have ZERO to offer a recruit other than come here and get your ass kicked by at least 4 or 5 other Texas teams week in and week out and probably a bunch of other beat downs as well

rivalries are not made by 1-5 north Texas VS 0-6 UTEP and that crap surely does not get in TV either and over time when a program has "we are in the CUSA" to offer and "we play in Texas a lot" and 5 other teams have "we are in CUSA" and "we play in Texas a lot" and a few of those teams can mix in "we win more than we lose especially against other Texas teams" you will see recruits either look to go where they win or to go elsewhere (like out of state)

7. more reality.....GMG members laugh at how crappy the BE will be and yet they seem to be dying to get at least some of those "crappy members" back into a conference with north Texas (and a TON of other even crappier teams)

only a fool would go into the CUSA with 21+ teams (and many of them looking to GTFO) ESPECIALLY when the football teams currently in the BE are 100% in control of their own destiny....they have weathered the storm of autobid issues according to all reports....the BB schools are goign away to form a new conference.....so the BE stays together and keeps the autobid and the BB schools are the ones concerned with getting an NCAA waiver.....so that is taken care of.....and the FB schools still have the ability to ask others to join them and most importantly they have the ability to negotiate a new contract because theirs is open now.....and if you think that the BE FB members will get some crappy TV contract.....what in the hell makes you think those schools + a bunch of crap in the CUSA (with a brand new poor TV contract) and some move ups is suddenly going to break that contract and get MORE money

there are teams that bring some type of value and those that eat at the food bowl....UH, SMU, Memphis, UCF, USF, Temple, ECU, and Tulane along with Boise and SDSU (and UConn nad Cincy if the stay and so far no one else is calling) are 12 teams that will bring a hell of a lot more value than what the CUSA is tossing out there.....and that is just a proven fact because that was the collection of teams that in the CUSA brought more value than the collection of former Sunblet teams brought when they were in the belt

and teams like USM, UTEP, Tulsa, and even Rice would jump in a heart beat to join those teams....and that is pretty much the old CUSA.....while the new CUSA is a collection of half belt teams and some moveups.....and half the belt teams and some moveups should get a TV contract about equal to the other half of the belt teams and their moveups......which is terrible.....so the half of the belt teams and their moveups that are in CUSA should be glad the CUSA has a TV contract that was negotiated before they were around.....and the BE filled with CUSA teams that were around when the CUSA deal was negotiated + Boise and USF and some others should be able to do better than they did before if only slightly.....and of course they will do a hell of a lot better than they would with 21-26 teams eating a meal made for 12

as it is now the BE has 12 teams that kick the crap out of the 14 the CUSA will end up with and even if the BE loses UConn and Cincy they can easily poach the two best (or more) from the CUSA and they have the ability to structure a much better TV deal for that potential occurance

those BE FB teams have all the control they need.....they have the autobids for themselves and it is the BB schools issues to get theirs for the new conference.....they can sell the BE name to those schools......they can sell the ability for the BB schools to leave early (even if for cheap) once the FB schools get things settled and they most importantly have the ability to decide who they will be conference mates with VS reverting to what would be 21-26 teams they want nothing to do with

UH, SMU, Memphis, UCF, ECU, and Tulane and every other program out there (sans apparently one) are going to continue to look out for their own best interest period and that does not involve hooking up with a huge bunch of schools they care nothing about or being in a conference with a half a dozen other Texas teams so they have nothing to differentiate themselves with and the CUSA TV deal is going to stay the same until it ends many years from now and the BE football teams (and whoever else they add or subtract) will almost certainly beat that deal even if for the fact that they have more experience to look at about how to craft a deal in light of what is happening with conference additions and subtractions and more so because they are a much more attractive collection of teams VS adding themselves to the 21-26 team CUSA

Damn, look at all the shit you just typed no one will read.

[Arkstfan]

I skimmed GL's post. Anyone who puts up something longer than Kindle Single length posts needs to edit

Huge conferences (ie. so big that teams never play all members)

Are flawed from the get-go.

I think any non-contract conference producing over $2 million per team is unlikely.

A good friend put forth a good vision of what he would do if he were one of the presidents.

Embrace regionalism, not localism.

His explanation of the difference, regionalism is insuring that you have a conference where fans can make at least 2, ideally three road games per year and see all other teams within a reasonable amount of time. The regional leagues being schools that contribute to the health of the league. That being you add teams that you can check off as being in one of these categories.

1. Wins football games and sells tickets

2. Wins basketball games and can contend to be an at-large.

3. Brings academic prestige with a national academic reputation.

4. Provides a benefit such as being in a regional tourist destination so that opponents can effectively sell road trips as an alumni benefit.

Localism under his definition is simply aligning with the closest schools.

Localism isn't going to happen in most cases because you need someone to be outside the group. The examples he cited were Memphis and SMU. Memphis plays ASU pretty regularly in football but they don't want to be in the same conference they want to be able to not renew when ASU is strong (current deal expires in 2013) but have a non-conference that will be eager to play. The same applies to SMU and UNT.

[ragpicker]

I am afraid that the success of TCU and Baylor has given SMU and Houston a sense of false hope, SMU needs to realize that their first priority should be putting fans in their stadium and that can only happen with local rivalries. Dallas is not Ft Worth or Waco. Our local news channels barely cover college sports these days. As for Houston, well, it is still Cougar High in the minds of many. Salvation for those schools will eventually depend on a conference that offers some of the advantages of the old SWC, (travel, local rivalries etc.) As long as each school remains self centered in its own self interest, rather than putting first what is good for college football as a whole in this area, nothing will change.

[meanrob]

I am afraid that the success of TCU and Baylor has given SMU and Houston a sense of false hope, SMU needs to realize that their first priority should be putting fans in their stadium and that can only happen with local rivalries. Dallas is not Ft Worth or Waco. Our local news channels barely cover college sports these days. As for Houston, well, it is still Cougar High in the minds of many. Salvation for those schools will eventually depend on a conference that offers some of the advantages of the old SWC, (travel, local rivalries etc.) As long as each school remains self centered in its own self interest, rather than putting first what is good for college football as a whole in this area, nothing will change.

I don't know any school in the country (including us) that isn't taking this approach.

[ragpicker]

I should have included all athletics instead of just football. It is outrageous, for example, for the four D1 schools in basketball. which are in thirty mile radius of each other, not to play each other every year regardless of conference affiliation. With recent and future advancement in public transportation in this area (DART, TRE, DCTA ) there is no reason college basketball could not become very popular for alumni and basketball fans in general throughout this metropolitan area.

[GrayEagle]

What standard can you set that the current members can make?

We all know what the attendance looks like at FIU and FAU.

I hope we all know that reported budget figures tend to be bogus because some schools avoid state regulators by funneling some athletic functions like sports information and fund-raising through "academic" offices.

Commitment is hard to assess. One school might produce $15 million a year by hitting students for $250 a semester. That indicates nothing but a willingness of the school to collect money via student loan debt and let someone else pay it off.

FIU and FAU might look committed because of that debt shift but how many tickets do they sell, how many dollars do they get donated.

I don't think you can create a meaningful standard and apply it to the current membership.

The standards would be set by the conference but I'll suggest something along the lines of the following:

1) A stadium of 30,000 or more; 2) average attendance of 17,000 graduated to 20,000 by year three; 3) annual revenue of $15M minimum (higher if by agreement); 4) ten years in Division 1A; and 5) x number of winning seasons in the last ten years (3 or 4 minimum). Adjacent population or market size could be a consideration but I'd prefer that it play a minor role.

This standard would only be for Conference USA. Other conferences could have lower standards, particularly those entering Division 1A/FBS schools for the first time.

I think that standards take away some of the politics involved in accepting a candidate. If an applicant met the requirements they should be accepted unless the conference can show cause for denial. One cause could be setting a maximum number of teams in the conference.

You're right about FAU and FIU. Under the above standards neither would qualify. The conference would have to make the decision to grandfather them in, give them a time period to meet compliance, or reject them. The same would be true for ODU, UTSA and Charlotte.

There could be conferences with odd numbers but I don't think that's a deal-breaker. The Big Ten operated with eleven teams for a number of years and the MAC has had 13 teams since first accepting Temple and now with UMass.

[casual fan]

Highest attended home game of each season.

29,437 Baylor.......... 2003

last 8 years

22,259 Tx Southern 2012

28,075 Houston.......2011

23,743 Rice ............2010

23,647 Army............2009

22,785 Tulsa...........2008

26,012 Navy........... 2007

25,231 smu ............2006

23,112 Tulsa.......... 2005

I had to piece it together, but I think it's correct. Who draws the largest crowds? Think about it.

[MeanGreenTexan]

I skimmed GL's post. Anyone who puts up something longer than Kindle Single length posts needs to edit

Huge conferences (ie. so big that teams never play all members)

Are flawed from the get-go.

I think any non-contract conference producing over $2 million per team is unlikely.

A good friend put forth a good vision of what he would do if he were one of the presidents.

Embrace regionalism, not localism.

His explanation of the difference, regionalism is insuring that you have a conference where fans can make at least 2, ideally three road games per year and see all other teams within a reasonable amount of time. The regional leagues being schools that contribute to the health of the league. That being you add teams that you can check off as being in one of these categories.

1. Wins football games and sells tickets

2. Wins basketball games and can contend to be an at-large.

3. Brings academic prestige with a national academic reputation.

4. Provides a benefit such as being in a regional tourist destination so that opponents can effectively sell road trips as an alumni benefit.

Localism under his definition is simply aligning with the closest schools.

Localism isn't going to happen in most cases because you need someone to be outside the group. The examples he cited were Memphis and SMU. Memphis plays ASU pretty regularly in football but they don't want to be in the same conference they want to be able to not renew when ASU is strong (current deal expires in 2013) but have a non-conference that will be eager to play. The same applies to SMU and UNT.

Lol. I've tried to tell him that before. At least he took my advice and started putting up bullet points (or numbered points in his case).

[rcade]

Our disdain for UTSA or Tx St drives me crazy. What about building regonial rivalries and filling stadiums?

Same here. The more in-state conference rivals we have, the better off we'll be.

[MeanGreenTexan]

Same here. The more in-state conference rivals we have, the better off we'll be.

So lets look to Houston/UTEP/Rice/SMU... you know, teams who have been around a while. Why do we need to look to these startup/moveup teams to create rivalries??

[casual fan]

So lets look to Houston/UTEP/Rice/SMU... you know, teams who have been around a while. Why do we need to look to these startup/moveup teams to create rivalries??

Why are you setting your sights so low? What about UT/A&M/Baylor/TT/TCU? We all would much rather play them home and home. However, will they play us home and home? Home games against Texas schools along with Army, Navy, and Tulsa have drawn our biggest crowds. Even Texas Southern drew 22,259...this years biggest crowd. Some people would rather play Idaho or a MAC team than UTSA or Texas State. Can we develop a rivalry with Idaho or a MAC school? Will they help turn out a bigger crowd than UTSA or Texas State? My point is let's start with UT and work our way down the list until we have 6 home games that are in our best interest. TT or Baylor might even play here just to see the new stadium.

[MeanGreenTexan]

Why are you setting your sights so low? What about UT/A&M/Baylor/TT/TCU? We all would much rather play them home and home. However, will they play us home and home? Home games against Texas schools along with Army, Navy, and Tulsa have drawn our biggest crowds. Even Texas Southern drew 22,259...this years biggest crowd. Some people would rather play Idaho or a MAC team than UTSA or Texas State. Can we develop a rivalry with Idaho or a MAC school? Will they help turn out a bigger crowd than UTSA or Texas State? My point is let's start with UT and work our way down the list until we have 6 home games that are in our best interest. TT or Baylor might even play here just to see the new stadium.

You are correct. I definitely like the idea of trickle-down. But I think we should really target schools that are peers for rivalries. That was my point. I'm not against playing UTSA or TXSt. But those are schools that we should be looking past. Instead, we're lowering our gaze to them. Good Grief! Listen to me, I sound like a Pony fan. Oh no.

[North Texas Shep]

Same here. The more in-state conference rivals we have, the better off we'll be.

I am all about building a rivalry with UTSA! As I have said many times the more Texas schools the better.

[North Texas Shep]

Why are you setting your sights so low? What about UT/A&M/Baylor/TT/TCU? We all would much rather play them home and home. However, will they play us home and home? Home games against Texas schools along with Army, Navy, and Tulsa have drawn our biggest crowds. Even Texas Southern drew 22,259...this years biggest crowd. Some people would rather play Idaho or a MAC team than UTSA or Texas State. Can we develop a rivalry with Idaho or a MAC school? Will they help turn out a bigger crowd than UTSA or Texas State? My point is let's start with UT and work our way down the list until we have 6 home games that are in our best interest. TT or Baylor might even play here just to see the new stadium.

I would love to have a rivalry with a larger school with a more established program, but they already have yearly rivalry games. It is fine to play them and dislike them, but we need a yearly rival in our conference. UTSA fits that bill. It does not matter if they are new. As both our teams get better we can build something great.

[North Texas Shep]

You are correct. I definitely like the idea of trickle-down. But I think we should really target schools that are peers for rivalries. That was my point. I'm not against playing UTSA or TXSt. But those are schools that we should be looking past. Instead, we're lowering our gaze to them. Good Grief! Listen to me, I sound like a Pony fan. Oh no.

Our peers! I like that. We need that CUSA rivalry. I keep bringing up UTSA because they are new and do not have a real rivalry. I am fine with us starting a rivalry with any of the Texas schools or Tulsa in CUSA. I want in state games! That is it. A rivalry will grow where needed. Oh and screw the Ponies.