(07-23-2017 08:00 AM)Hurricane Drummer Wrote:  

(07-23-2017 02:03 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 03:04 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 02:38 PM)Hurricane Drummer Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 02:29 PM)rosewater Wrote:  Tulsa has a football attendance problem. I was surprised at the lack of people at the game last year. I have been hard on Tulsa in the past a laughing hysterically about Tulsane. Tulsa has separated itself from Tulane, but in order to take the next step must consider attendance.

Honest question: Did you all really think Tulsa and Tulane were on the same level? No offense to Tulane, but we've generally had the upper hand against them athletically.

Tulsa has always been competitive, so I was personally never too worried about that. My objections to Tulsa joining this conference were related to being a small, private school in a medium-sized market with limited reach. But in retrospect, there is no one outside of BYU and a couple of Mountain West schools that I would have preferred at the time.

Which is why you don't overexpand. Why did the league have to have 12? It'd be stronger and less diluted at 9/10. Look at the Sun Belt versus C-USA. C-USA would be better had it not added the Florida schools and/or given Charlotte time to grow.

I'm not sure if you're suggesting Tulsa shouldn't have been added, or not. But if you are that would be silly. Tulsa has won more conference championshis than any other school since we joined. And we finished 2nd in our football division last year (ahead of the almighty Houston). And would have won the division if not for some officiating gaffes.

He isn't saying you haven't pulled your weight athletically. He is saying adding Tulsa and Tulane were not necessary - and the addition of those schools were not worth slicing the pie by more pieces financially. In that opinion he is almost assuredly correct. The only good reason to have added them is if our TV contract required a certain number of teams.