UTSA distancing from realignment talk

[CurveItAround]

So by not choosing one over the other, we allowed both to survive? Sounds like a pretty respectable thing to do.

Edited January 14, 2013 by CurveItAround

[Arkstfan]

Britton Banowsky erred badly in his rush to replace CUSA defectors. It's not that he didn't get potentially good replacements but adding moveups and basing his decisions (save LaTech) on markets was wrong. In business, if you promote the young neophyte over someone who has proved their worth over time the results are distrust and low morale. I see a similar parallel here.

There not being a glut of qualified teams, I believe that BB should have only added to maintain the level of 12. He had four to replace initially and North Texas, Louisiana Tech, Louisiana and Arkansas State should have been the choices in my opinion. All have been in Division 1-A at least 25 years with degrees of success. Louisiana has averaged 26,000 attendance over the last two years and Arkansas State 25,000 last year. Both have been to bowls the last two years. Louisiana has beaten San Diego State and East Carolina in those two bowls and last year was largely responsible for a record 48,000+ attendance at the New Orleans Bowl.

Except the problem was that CUSA had Marshall and ECU and to a lesser degree UAB to contend with. While much is made of ECU/Marshall wanting eastern schools and a Florida more specifically, I believe UAB was a firm supporter of ODU and Charlotte with them. CUSA had 8 voting members. To add schools required 6 affirmative votes. UAB's interests were served with ODU and Charlotte, not North Texas, UTSA, La.Tech, Louisiana Lafayette, or Arkansas State. UAB's core sport is basketball and they needed quality additions even if they had never played a down of FBS ball or even a down of football at all.

If the Big East had taken ECU and Tulane at the same time as Memphis, the dynamic changes dramatically.

Five affirmitative votes would have been required out of UTEP, Tulsa, Rice, USM, UAB, and Marshall. A scenario much closer to the WAC post Tulsa, SMU, Rice, UTEP. There might have been willingness to throw Marshall a regional bone but would have otherwise lacked the clout to force half of the expansion within their desired region.

Change the timing and CUSA probably adds at least five of UNT, UTSA, Arkansas State, Louisiana Lafayette, Louisiana Tech, MTSU, WKU with no FIU, no FAU, no ODU, no Charlotte.

[Harry]

Britton Banowsky erred badly in his rush to replace CUSA defectors.

Erred badly in comparison to whom? Nostradamus? He made the best play he could to given the circumstances and members schools he needed to deal with at that particular time. If he sits on his hands he risk Benson trying to make a play for the very same schools he landed. I just don't get the criticisms of Banowsky after the fact...sure hindsight is 20/20 but I don't disagree with the moves he made. I think the Big East taking Tulane may be a much worse decision after all is said and done.

[Arkstfan]

Erred badly in comparison to whom? Nostradamus? He made the best play he could to given the circumstances and members schools he needed to deal with at that particular time. If he sits on his hands he risk Benson trying to make a play for the very same schools he landed. I just don't get the criticisms of Banowsky after the fact...sure hindsight is 20/20 but I don't disagree with the moves he made. I think the Big East taking Tulane may be a much worse decision after all is said and done.

The beauty of being a commissioner is the you have essentially 0 power and 100% of the blame.

Under typical conference bylaws, adding a school requires that some member institution move to admit the school, that must then be seconded and then requires a 3/4ths vote to pass.

It is easy to blame Britt but the reality of the situation ought to be obvious. There were eight voting schools in CUSA so six votes were needed to admit a school and three required to block a school. To avoid being stuck at 8 a grand bargain was struck to extend six invitations.

If you look at the likely wants and needs of the eight voting schools. I believe my assumption at the time that UNT was in no matter what was wrong. If that had been the case when things locked up the easy thing is to admit the school(s) that can get the votes. Almost certainly ECU, Marshall and UAB jointly blocked UNT. Merely adding FIU to the mix (the second most rumored sure thing) did not break the deadlock. It took adding six to garner the required 6 affirmative votes because the interests of Marshall, ECU, and UAB had diverged from the interests of the five.

Agreeing to add Charlotte and ODU (and arguably) FIU was not consistent with the interests of Tulane, USM, Tulsa, Rice, UTEP, it was the cost to get a UNT that they truly wanted a La.Tech of presumably less interest and a future bet on UTSA that did not have to be placed, except as balance against what happened in the east.

The mega-expansion isn't Bankowsky's "fault" it is the product of the power of a super-majority vote being required and the power it vests within a minority.

Look back at what ECU's AD Terry Holland was calling for almost four years ago. 16 teams adding MTSU and WKU to the east and a big "I don't care" about which two would join the west. CUSA lost two southwestern schools, two mid-south, two east. The eastern voting block replaced that with 2 southwestern, 1 mid-south, and 5 eastern schools (counting MTSU as eastern because they were part of Holland's vision for the eastern division).

By using the super-majority voting, Marshall and UAB (and before the last raid ECU), leveraged CUSA from three eastern oriented, three mid-south, six southwest into seven eastern oriented, two mid-south, five southwestern.

That's not Bankowsky, he's just there to write down the vote totals.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Erred badly in comparison to whom? Nostradamus? He made the best play he could to given the circumstances and members schools he needed to deal with at that particular time. If he sits on his hands he risk Benson trying to make a play for the very same schools he landed. I just don't get the criticisms of Banowsky after the fact...sure hindsight is 20/20 but I don't disagree with the moves he made.

They were questionable at best decisions at the time, they are worse decisions now.

Regardless of who gets the blame for the decisions.

[GrayEagle]

Erred badly in comparison to whom? Nostradamus? He made the best play he could to given the circumstances and members schools he needed to deal with at that particular time. If he sits on his hands he risk Benson trying to make a play for the very same schools he landed. I just don't get the criticisms of Banowsky after the fact...sure hindsight is 20/20 but I don't disagree with the moves he made. I think the Big East taking Tulane may be a much worse decision after all is said and done.

Who was clamoring to get ODU and Charlotte?

The Big East? If they wanted them they could have had them regardless of what Banowsky did.

The Sun Belt? ODU wouldn't have gone to the Belt. The reason that they accepted CUSA was because of East Carolina. How did that work out for us? Charlotte...maybe, but they haven't played a down of football yet so you think that they were ready? When they are ready do you believe that CUSA would not be able to take them from the Sun Belt?

Taking FCS members lowers conference esteem. We seem to have disdain the Sun Belt (especially) and the MAC because they are conferences of original entry. Does the Mountain West or Big East take moveups? No. Prior to this no non-FBS team had been taken from outside CUSA. South Florida and UAB started football programs after they were CUSA members.

If market is the sole driving source then why stop at 14? If he wanted to make a statement then why not expand to 16, 18, or 20? The MWC-CUSA merger numbers were expounding at least 20 teams. I think that he should have either stopped at 12 by just replacing those lost or go to an unprecedented amount. Sure the payout would have been smaller per team but the total numbers would have been more enticing to TV execs.

If it can be proven that he talked to the better MAC teams and considered the better Sun Belt teams first then I'll apologize for casting aspersions on his leadership. But, if he did, he sure kept it quiet.

Edited January 14, 2013 by GrayEagle

[GrayEagle]

Wow! We're paying a commissioner $900,000 a year just to record the votes. If he is so powerless then why do we need him? Especially at that salary.

Do members dictate to Delaney, Slive, Thompson, et al how the conference is to be run? Certainly not that I have seen. If commissioners have no power to persuade or dissuade members for the common good of the conference then they should be removed. Athletic Directors have no vote either but they do have a voice. The conference is not run by the AD at one institution. Their voice should be heard but they have a myopic view of the league and have to be sold on the common good.

If a vote recorder is all that is needed then I'm available for far less and I imagine that I'd be just one of thousands applying.

[Arkstfan]

Obviously a commissioner has the power to persuade and cajole. But if you are at 8 members and you need 6 votes to add any school and three refuse to assent... you have no power.

Crisis is when the power of leadership is tested.

WAC16 was brought into being by crisis. The CFA TV deal was going away and the WAC was going to have to make their own deal and they were facing a large drop in revenue. The commissioner, Joe Kearney couldn't corral the members into picking two teams.

The SWC and Big 8 looked down the barrel of that gun and the SWC crumbled. I've always thought it was interesting that Hatchell became commissioner rather than James from the Big 8, seemed a little hinky to me.

The Sun Belt was the very definition of crisis when Utah State and NMSU defected yet the plane got pulled out of the dive.

Maybe another commissioner might have been able to nudge a different solution, maybe not.

Maybe if Wright Waters hadn't announced his retirement and had stuck around another 2 years back in April and May he could have convinced UNT and FIU to take advantage of the CUSA gridlock instead of writing the two schools off as Benson did and could have brokered an east/west solution and then taken his retirement as the Sun Belt faded away.

[FirefightnRick]

Totally understand wanting to align with UTSA, Tulsa, Rice, Tulane and said so when UNT joined, but UTSA was available to be a Sun Belt and UNT didn't want them.

Sorry if I'm confused on the timeline of this M,...but WHEN was the meeting that took place in which NT chose to not support bringing in TxSt and UTSA?

Rick

[GrayEagle]

Obviously a commissioner has the power to persuade and cajole. But if you are at 8 members and you need 6 votes to add any school and three refuse to assent... you have no power.

What if the majority had refused to assent? Why would they give in to the dissenters, one of which was sure to be gone soon? Did he try to reason with the minority or did he just record the vote? What would Jim Delaney have done?

Other than that I understand that all conference politics are not black and white and I agree with your scenarios. Sometimes you just have to play hardball but the wishes of the majority should prevail. IMO that's the commissioner's job.

Edited January 14, 2013 by GrayEagle

[Green Dozer]

At first I wasn't sure about UTSA because they are a new program but I like them now. The way I see it is schools like South Florida are good programs and they haven't been playing football very long. Additionally, it will be a fun game to go to. To bad I can't wait until Fall to go see Crockett's letter from the Alamo on display and kill two birds with one stone because its only out for viewing for two weeks. I guess I get two SA trips this year. (Yes, I am a super dork with history.) Assuming its a road game. UTSA will be a great team for us in the long run.

Travis's letter is the one that will be on display at The Alamo. Just didn't want you to be disappointed or look like a complete dork. LOL

[All About UNT]

Travis's letter is the one that will be on display at The Alamo. Just didn't want you to be disappointed or look like a complete dork. LOL

Make sure to check out Bowie's Old Betsy and Travis's Knife when you go. J/k...

[CurveItAround]

Who was clamoring to get ODU and Charlotte?

The Big East? If they wanted them they could have had them regardless of what Banowsky did.

The Sun Belt? ODU wouldn't have gone to the Belt. The reason that they accepted CUSA was because of East Carolina. How did that work out for us? Charlotte...maybe, but they haven't played a down of football yet so you think that they were ready? When they are ready do you believe that CUSA would not be able to take them from the Sun Belt?

Taking FCS members lowers conference esteem. We seem to have disdain the Sun Belt (especially) and the MAC because they are conferences of original entry. Does the Mountain West or Big East take moveups? No. Prior to this no non-FBS team had been taken from outside CUSA. South Florida and UAB started football programs after they were CUSA members.

If market is the sole driving source then why stop at 14? If he wanted to make a statement then why not expand to 16, 18, or 20? The MWC-CUSA merger numbers were expounding at least 20 teams. I think that he should have either stopped at 12 by just replacing those lost or go to an unprecedented amount. Sure the payout would have been smaller per team but the total numbers would have been more enticing to TV execs.

If it can be proven that he talked to the better MAC teams and considered the better Sun Belt teams first then I'll apologize for casting aspersions on his leadership. But, if he did, he sure kept it quiet.

If the nBE decides to move to 16 and somehow the MWC decides it needs to follow suit, I could see one of their best options to be inviting UTEP, UTSA, Rice, and UNT (assumption is SMU, UH, and Tulsa in nBE). I really don't see either of them feeling the need to go to 16, but if MWC wanted to establish a Texas foothold, it is probably easier to go to 16 than 14. You really have 2 different conferences at that point though and it will be tough to keep everyone happy.

I think it is way more likely the MWC stays at 12, but UNT in the MWC with three other Texas schools would be our best case scenario at this point.

[UNTexas]

Travis's letter is the one that will be on display at The Alamo. Just didn't want you to be disappointed or look like a complete dork. LOL

That is what I meant. I am driving down to see it when its on display in late February. Would have been nice to go see the letter, a good game, and drink beer on the river walk all at once. I read they don't want it out because of the ink in the light or something. I get two trips this way. Oh well, more beer!

[Green Dozer]

That is what I meant. I am driving down to see it when its on display in late February. Would have been nice to go see the letter, a good game, and drink beer on the river walk all at once. I read they don't want it out because of the ink in the light or something. I get two trips this way. Oh well, more beer!

I was planning to go see it as well. For those wondering, the letter(the real deal) that Travis wrote while under siege and before dying at the Alamo wrote. It will only be on display from Feb 23 to March 7.

[JesseMartin]

Casting aside all of the "what ifs" and conference politics throughout this thread...

1) ECU may be the "baby brother" in the Carolinas, but for me it's been more interesting than the big boys. You may lose out locally due to the supporter bases in the area, but for other NCAA fans who casually check out other teams, ECU's rise, attendance, appearance in the "every week #2 loses" craziness of 2007, and general success when playing pretty much everybody, with ups and downs and close calls (Ohio State Who?) has been awesome, both in terms of statistical likelihood and overall entertainment. I don't think there is a "casual watcher and viewer interest" caveat in most sports research databases, but if there were, I do believe ECU's football program would have been relevant, at the very least.

2) The city of San Antonio is freaking awesome. My only issue here is wondering why the hell it took so long for them to get a football program, at any level, with a capacity to be followed nationally, for all of the reasons mentioned here and elsewhere. Like it or not, I really see UTSA becoming a major player on a number of levels. Even if they were forever an FCS team, they would likely have a higher attendance than about half of the FBS teams. Their model of advancement follows a number of things that we have done, or tried to do, over the years, but just has the support, population, market, and interest to make it work all at once. Some of those things, by comparison, we can't help. Others, we can...so let's get to work, baby!

[Arkstfan]

Sorry if I'm confused on the timeline of this M,...but WHEN was the meeting that took place in which NT chose to not support bringing in TxSt and UTSA?

Rick

Spring meeting 2011,

[Arkstfan]

What if the majority had refused to assent? Why would they give in to the dissenters, one of which was sure to be gone soon? Did he try to reason with the minority or did he just record the vote? What would Jim Delaney have done?

Other than that I understand that all conference politics are not black and white and I agree with your scenarios. Sometimes you just have to play hardball but the wishes of the majority should prevail. IMO that's the commissioner's job.

Bylaws require a 3/4ths vote you are stuck with the bylaws.

[FirefightnRick]

Spring meeting 2011,

Thank you.

"Sigh"

[PlummMeanGreen]

Casting aside all of the "what ifs" and conference politics throughout this thread...

1) ECU may be the "baby brother" in the Carolinas, but for me it's been more interesting than the big boys. You may lose out locally due to the supporter bases in the area, but for other NCAA fans who casually check out other teams, ECU's rise, attendance, appearance in the "every week #2 loses" craziness of 2007, and general success when playing pretty much everybody, with ups and downs and close calls (Ohio State Who?) has been awesome, both in terms of statistical likelihood and overall entertainment. I don't think there is a "casual watcher and viewer interest" caveat in most sports research databases, but if there were, I do believe ECU's football program would have been relevant, at the very least.

2) The city of San Antonio is freaking awesome. My only issue here is wondering why the hell it took so long for them to get a football program, at any level, with a capacity to be followed nationally, for all of the reasons mentioned here and elsewhere. Like it or not, I really see UTSA becoming a major player on a number of levels. Even if they were forever an FCS team, they would likely have a higher attendance than about half of the FBS teams. Their model of advancement follows a number of things that we have done, or tried to do, over the years, but just has the support, population, market, and interest to make it work all at once. Some of those things, by comparison, we can't help. Others, we can...so let's get to work, baby!

We can start by hiring UTSA's entire marketing staff and show that school we are not as impotent and backwards thinking athletically as many of their supporters now claim on 1 or 2 other conference forum boards concerning UNT. Yes, hire away their entire staff which have produced results in a very short amount of time and that have put UTSA in the national sports spotlight because of it or...................... we can keep wishin' and hopin' our own will eventually get it figured out sometimes in their next 10 years on the UNT payroll or before Gabriel blows his horn.

You hire your success, folks, venues don't do it by themselves; Casepoint: The Super Pit since its opening in 1972 of which its debut evening with Gene Robbins as the (then) UNT basketball coach was a very enjoyable experience for many of us who were there.

GMG!

A post from the CUSAbbs board:

SApuro

2nd String

Posts: 316

Joined: May 2012

Reputation: 13

I Root For: UTSA

Location:

Post: #12

RE: UTSA Realignment Article

(01-13-2013 07:01 PM)next04 Wrote:

(01-13-2013 12:33 PM)SApuro Wrote: I love our AD but she pissed me off with these comments. She needs to be working the phones and putting us in a conference with the tallest midgets. Nothing sexy about future add WKU. Just my opinion.

And what exactly is sexy about UTSA? Try accomplishing something before you bash others

Nothing against WKU but I have zero interest in playing them. I don't think they add a viable TV market or have high academic standards or a rabid fan base. They do however have a fairly decent athletic program but since when does that matter.

I don't want UTSA to turn into a UNT. Satisfied being in a sunbelt (bottom tier) type conference. I prefer us to model after USF.

Edited January 15, 2013 by PlummMeanGreen

[PlummMeanGreen]

"Just to be clear, I'm more excited about this group (in 2013) than I've ever been", C-USA commissioner Britton Banowsky said. "The enthusiasm we have is great. We've put ourselves in great shape going forward. We can still lose members, and that's OK, because we have a great core in place."

"It's a group with a whole lot of upside potential."

In fact, Banowsky said that C-USA has plans for a 14-team football conference this fall, two more than expected.

Middle Tennessee and Florida Atlantic, he said, are strong candidates to play in the conference a year ahead of their projected 2014 entry.

If Banowsky can close the deal before the end of the month, those two would join UTSA, UTEP, North Texas, Rice, Tulsa and Tulane, as well as Louisiana Tech, East Carolina, Marshall, Southern Mississippi, Alabama-Birmingham and Florida International in the largest C-USA field in history.

East Carolina and Tulane already have agreed to leave and join the Big East a year from now, so C-USA is tentatively scheduled to revert to a dozen members in 2014.

Plans call for the conference to increase to 14 again by 2015 with the addition of Old Dominion and Charlotte.

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/UTSA-distancing-from-realignment-talk-4189872.php#ixzz2HryrdNJ4

ODU and Charlotte were added to appease (mostly) East Carolina and I'd bet Commish' Banowsky now wishes he could do a re-do with those 2 schools. Neither schools were ready to move up or in one case add football it seems; albeit one of those 2 schools sells about 15,000 football season tickets.

I think those are 2 fine schools but they are just not located in what is turning out to be what I think is CUSA's Deep South/Southwest footprint. I'd much rather have ASU, U of Louisiana or WKU and tightened up that Deep South/Southwest CUSA footprint even more. Maybe Commish' Banowsky can talk those 2 schools out of wanting to join CUSA. LOL!

GMG!

Edited January 15, 2013 by PlummMeanGreen

[UNTexas]

"SApuro Wrote: I love our AD but she pissed me off with these comments. She needs to be working the phones and putting us in a conference with the tallest midgets. Nothing sexy about future add WKU. Just my opinion."

"I don't want UTSA to turn into a UNT. Satisfied being in a sunbelt (bottom tier) type conference."

Awfully big talk for a guy who's team stacks their schedule with Division 2 teams. Especially since they were going for the WAC. Maybe UTSA should go to the SEC or Big XII with their storied football traditions. What a champ. If he weren't so daft he might realize we left the Sunbelt. Mouthbreathers are funny.

Most of their fans are cool. I guess everyone has maggots like this...

Edited January 15, 2013 by UNTexas

[JesseMartin]

We can start by hiring UTSA's entire marketing staff and show that school we are not as impotent and backwards thinking athletically as many of their supporters now claim on 1 or 2 other conference forum boards concerning UNT. Yes, hire away their entire staff which have produced results in a very short amount of time and that have put UTSA in the national sports spotlight because of it or...................... we can keep wishin' and hopin' our own will eventually get it figured out sometimes in their next 10 years on the UNT payroll or before Gabriel blows his horn.

I'm with you on the marketing standpoint, but I don't think we have any need to lure their people away. There are plenty of people already in the DFW metro area, many of them our own alums, capable of doing the exact same thing if given the opportunity. Nothing they are doing is wildly mindblowing, as I've pointed out before since we've done or discussed doing almost all of it before, just not as one unified conglomeration of ideas. Circle the wagons, set up shop, and take care of business with a broad approach, ensuring attention to detail in each of the areas, and we can be successful. Talking about, or doing, one aspect of a great marketing campaign/program at a time and failing to see more results than when you did one of the other small aspects doesn't mean it didn't work, it just proves that quitting one job to start another will never be as useful as if you were to do both jobs in unison.

[Monkeypox]

Spring meeting 2011,

Who brought the motion to add UTSA?

[TIgreen01]

Once this is all complete and the Big East is the old CUSA and CUSA is the old Sun Belt, I'd like to just rename the conferences back to what they were---ie, get rid of the Big East moniker. We stay in the Suck Belt, and dirty schmoo, UH, Tulsa, etc are back in CUSA. That would at least FEEL like less of a kick in the junk and we'd get to save $$ on repainting/rebranding all of our fields/courts/uniforms/promotions....

Oh, and a big EFF YOU to all butt sniffing college presidents who were a part of this soul stealing activity that has taken place for the past 2 years. Top to bottom, you're mostly just a bunch of cowardly @ss wipes.