+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: CUSAbbs (/forum-514.html)
+---- Forum: CUSA Conference Talk (/forum-439.html)
+---- Thread: this year's conference configuration - why? (/thread-698174.html)
this year's conference configuration - why? - wbc33 - 08-12-2014 07:42 AM
Last week, I saw Conference USA's 2014 divisions for the first time. There are 13 teams this season, so the divisions are unbalanced (6 teams in the West and 7 in the East). Next season, Charlotte will join the conference as the 14th team. I assume Charlotte will be placed in the East division. The conference will then have balanced divisions (7 each), but someone who is in the East division this season will have to be bumped over into the West division next season. Looking at the map, my first guess is that team will be UAB. Geographically, they're the farthest West and I think it probably would be a good idea to keep them with Southern Miss. But my question and what I don't understand is why didn't they just go ahead and put UAB (or whomever) in the West division this year if they knew it was coming anyway? They bumped Southern Miss into the West this season, so why didn't they just go ahead and have UAB go with them?
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - MinerInWisconsin - 08-12-2014 08:16 AM
(08-12-2014 07:42 AM)wbc33 Wrote: Last week, I saw Conference USA's 2014 divisions for the first time. There are 13 teams this season, so the divisions are unbalanced (6 teams in the West and 7 in the East). Next season, Charlotte will join the conference as the 14th team. I assume Charlotte will be placed in the East division. The conference will then have balanced divisions (7 each), but someone who is in the East division this season will have to be bumped over into the West division next season. Looking at the map, my first guess is that team will be UAB. Geographically, they're the farthest West and I think it probably would be a good idea to keep them with Southern Miss. But my question and what I don't understand is why didn't they just go ahead and put UAB (or whomever) in the West division this year if they knew it was coming anyway? They bumped Southern Miss into the West this season, so why didn't they just go ahead and have UAB go with them?
Obvious to me that UAB wasn't sent west this season because they will not be in the west ever. The conference is likely bringing ULL and Ark St in for a 16 school conference and both of those schools will join the current 6 team west and UAB will be east to make 8 schools in each division.
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - BeliefBlazer - 08-12-2014 08:27 AM
My guess is UAB requested to stay east for one more season. In a worst case scenario Southern, Middle, and Western are all on the road so attendance will not be helped by staying east this year.
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - Side Show Joe - 08-12-2014 09:52 AM
(08-12-2014 08:16 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:(08-12-2014 07:42 AM)wbc33 Wrote: Last week, I saw Conference USA's 2014 divisions for the first time. There are 13 teams this season, so the divisions are unbalanced (6 teams in the West and 7 in the East). Next season, Charlotte will join the conference as the 14th team. I assume Charlotte will be placed in the East division. The conference will then have balanced divisions (7 each), but someone who is in the East division this season will have to be bumped over into the West division next season. Looking at the map, my first guess is that team will be UAB. Geographically, they're the farthest West and I think it probably would be a good idea to keep them with Southern Miss. But my question and what I don't understand is why didn't they just go ahead and put UAB (or whomever) in the West division this year if they knew it was coming anyway? They bumped Southern Miss into the West this season, so why didn't they just go ahead and have UAB go with them?
Obvious to me that UAB wasn't sent west this season because they will not be in the west ever. The conference is likely bringing ULL and Ark St in for a 16 school conference and both of those schools will join the current 6 team west and UAB will be east to make 8 schools in each division.
What????? I've seen nothing to suggest that will happen. The presidents don't want to expand. 14 is plenty. UAB probably requested to stay in the east for one more season.
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - blazerjay - 08-12-2014 09:57 AM
(08-12-2014 08:27 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote: My guess is UAB requested to stay east for one more season. In a worst case scenario Southern, Middle, and Western are all on the road so attendance will not be helped by staying east this year.
Close, from what I've heard, UAB doesn't want to go west ever and used their "charter membership card" to get the decision delayed a year.
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - BeliefBlazer - 08-12-2014 10:10 AM
Well then, I guess we'll see how much pull our athletics's office has. The only other sensible option I see is to split Florida Atlantic and FIU but give them a protected rivalry. Everyone is going to have to fly in to SoFla any way.
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - fauowls561 - 08-12-2014 10:18 AM
(08-12-2014 10:10 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote: Well then, I guess we'll see how much pull our athletics's office has. The only other sensible option I see is to split Florida Atlantic and FIU but give them a protected rivalry. Everyone is going to have to fly in to SoFla any way.
So you would send one of the two teams located furthest east in conference out west? That doesn't make much sense. How about we just look at a map and do what makes the most sense geographically?
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - BeliefBlazer - 08-12-2014 10:30 AM
Perhaps you didn't read or comprehend the discussion. I merely presented a "what if" scenario in the event UAB is not the team moved west. Geographically it would have made more sense not to add the Florida twins in the first place.
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - MTowho - 08-12-2014 10:35 AM
(08-12-2014 10:18 AM)fauowls561 Wrote: So you would send one of the two teams located furthest east in conference out west? That doesn't make much sense. How about we just look at a map and do what makes the most sense geographically?
Sure, UAB is the next most western team, but does it make sense, looking at your map, to split MT/WKU/UAB from each other? There isn't going to be a perfect solution that makes everyone happy.
I'm interested to see what the final decision is here.
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - Chappy - 08-12-2014 10:48 AM
I'm surprised UAB wouldn't prefer the West, since that's where the majority of the C-USA legacy programs will be (Rice, Southern Miss, UTEP vs just Marshall in the East). Perhaps they want to be with Charlotte; that would make sense.
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - OptimisticOwl - 08-12-2014 10:54 AM
I think UTEP is moving to the East and Charlotte and ODU are coming West.
OH, wait, that's what Congress would do. Never mind.
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - BeliefBlazer - 08-12-2014 11:00 AM
(08-12-2014 10:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: I think UTEP is moving to the East and Charlotte and ODU are coming West.
OH, wait, that's what Congress would do. Never mind.
Perhaps we could add just one more team to the west and declare UAB to be neutral. 7 east, 7 west, and the District of UAB.
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - OptimisticOwl - 08-12-2014 11:02 AM
(08-12-2014 11:00 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:(08-12-2014 10:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: I think UTEP is moving to the East and Charlotte and ODU are coming West.
OH, wait, that's what Congress would do. Never mind.
Perhaps we could add just one more team to the west and declare UAB to be neutral. 7 east, 7 west, and the District of UAB.
UAB could be everybody's crossover game.
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - fauowls561 - 08-12-2014 11:06 AM
(08-12-2014 10:30 AM)BeliefBlazer Wrote: Perhaps you didn't read or comprehend the discussion. I merely presented a "what if" scenario in the event UAB is not the team moved west. Geographically it would have made more sense not to add the Florida twins in the first place.
No, I understood.
I was just confused why you thought that was the next most sensible option when that option doesn't make much sense for a number of reasons. Why is it that UAB would be so opposed to being in the West in the first place?
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - THUNDERStruck73 - 08-12-2014 11:10 AM
I thought the conference was going to split into the SSW and the NNE divisions
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - olliebaba - 08-12-2014 11:20 AM
Obvious to me that UAB wasn't sent west this season because they will not be in the west ever. The conference is likely bringing ULL and Ark St in for a 16 school conference and both of those schools will join the current 6 team west and UAB will be east to make 8 schools in each division.
[/quote]
Personally, I would rather that cusa keeps it at 14 instead of 16. I don't think those two teams add much especially in attendance or basketball especially.
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - BeliefBlazer - 08-12-2014 11:24 AM
(08-12-2014 11:06 AM)fauowls561 Wrote: I was just confused why you thought that was the next most sensible option when that option doesn't make much sense for a number of reasons. Why is it that UAB would be so opposed to being in the West in the first place?
UAB has a good history with Western Kentucky, Charlotte, and Old Dominion. MT's proximity are great for attendance for both schools and let's face it, UAB needs opponents who can bring a few fans.
I still think UAB to the west is the most likely outcome but that doesn't mean no other options should be considered. There are reasons why Missouri is in the SEC east even though they are a geographic outlier in that division.
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - Ace Barker - 08-12-2014 11:40 AM
UAB is considered a charter member in football (1999)? I believe the only charter member left in football is USM (1995).
Ace...
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - BeliefBlazer - 08-12-2014 11:43 AM
(08-12-2014 11:40 AM)Ace Barker Wrote: UAB is considered a charter member in football (1999)? I believe the only charter member left in football is USM (1995).
Ace...
Charter member of the conference as a whole and even named the conference IIRC.
RE: this year's conference configuration - why? - MTPiKapp - 08-12-2014 11:49 AM
(08-12-2014 08:16 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:(08-12-2014 07:42 AM)wbc33 Wrote: Last week, I saw Conference USA's 2014 divisions for the first time. There are 13 teams this season, so the divisions are unbalanced (6 teams in the West and 7 in the East). Next season, Charlotte will join the conference as the 14th team. I assume Charlotte will be placed in the East division. The conference will then have balanced divisions (7 each), but someone who is in the East division this season will have to be bumped over into the West division next season. Looking at the map, my first guess is that team will be UAB. Geographically, they're the farthest West and I think it probably would be a good idea to keep them with Southern Miss. But my question and what I don't understand is why didn't they just go ahead and put UAB (or whomever) in the West division this year if they knew it was coming anyway? They bumped Southern Miss into the West this season, so why didn't they just go ahead and have UAB go with them?
Obvious to me that UAB wasn't sent west this season because they will not be in the west ever. The conference is likely bringing ULL and Ark St in for a 16 school conference and both of those schools will join the current 6 team west and UAB will be east to make 8 schools in each division.
Even if you were serious(and correct), I doubt we see another SBC team leave on short notice lke FAU and MT did, so in your scenario, UAB would play 2014 in the east, 2015 in the west, and 2016 in the east.