The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(11-20-2012 12:15 PM)the Dragon Wrote:  

(11-20-2012 11:59 AM)UAB?IAB Wrote:  

(11-20-2012 11:16 AM)the Dragon Wrote:  

(11-20-2012 11:01 AM)UAB?IAB Wrote:  1. Why would 9 leave C-USA to form a new conference with 3? Especially if the big east collapses before the other four ever play in the conference.

2. A new conference won't have any name equity which would put it a disadvantage when it comes to other established "group of 5" conferences.

3. All conferences outside of the Big 5 are on equal footing in terms of access but a an established C-USA, with the additions, would have more leverage in media negotiations than a new conference.

4. Louisville is still a possibility for the Big 12, so establishing a conference with them would be shakey at best.

5. Two division as mentioned would be easy to establish within the C-USA footprint.

1. So those schools can avoid being in a conference with FIU, UTSA, UNT, etc.

2. All of those schools have more name equity than what would be left in C-USA. The schools matter more than the conference name.

3. The winner of that league would be in better position than the winner of any other league except maybe the MWC in most years.

4. If so, we can be choosy about who we offer to replace Louisville. I'd like to see them come back to Bartow again, even for a season or two.

5. A new all-sports conference would be easy to establish because all these schools were once or currently are in C-USA.

1. 5 of the nine are already committed to be in the same conference with FIU, UTSA, UNT, etc. Which could still lose their invite.

2. If that was the case, then why did those schools jump to the perceived better BE? ND is the only school that has proven to have more name equity and leverage than being associated with a conference. Only a couple of more could possibly pull that off.

3. Same could be said for C-USA with/without the additions.

4. Who would be left to chose from? Beggars can't be choosers.

5. Part of my point. Just because you repackage a good and stamp on a new logo doesn't make it better product if the content remains the same.

1. Joining L-ville, Memphis, Cincy, etc. would be an upgrade for all 5.
2. To gain AQ status and BCS money, which they will get for one year. Then AQ goes away. Plus, they get an improved basketball slate.
3,4, And 5. Do you think the old C-USA schools alone wouldn't be better than the old C-USA schools plus FIU, UNT, UTSA, etc.? The old C-USA schools would bring equal or more money with fewer hands in the jar, and they would bring higher quality of football and basketball top to bottom.

Agreed, keep current C-USA add Louisville, Cincinnati, South Forida, and Temple, rescind the invite to the others.