(04-03-2011 06:25 PM)ShoreBuc Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 02:31 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Conference USA should worry more about making sure the Texas members of that conference don't try an form a new conference.

Too late...We don't call it C-Tex for nothing. If they broke off and went their own way CUSA East would pick up some new teams and move on. Quite frankly it would not be the end of the world if CUSA West and East became part of more geographically realistic situations

All the power is in the East anyway. Better football. Better basketball.

(04-03-2011 06:25 PM)ShoreBuc Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 02:31 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Conference USA should worry more about making sure the Texas members of that conference don't try an form a new conference.

Too late...We don't call it C-Tex for nothing. If they broke off and went their own way CUSA East would pick up some new teams and move on. Quite frankly it would not be the end of the world if CUSA West and East became part of more geographically realistic situations

CUSA West plus UTSA, UNT, La Tech could become the SWC II.

I don't think that is going to happen though because a new conference would be starting all over with bowl tie-ins, and NCAA revenue ect.

What would make more sense I think is for the CAA to add football and invite ECU, Marshall, and UCF from CUSA along with Buffalo, Temple, UMass of the MAC. Then invite Georgia st, James Madison, Old Dominion, Delaware to move up.

The CAA is now pulling in more in basketball credits than CUSA, so that won't be a problem there. It may take a few years to get the bowl tie-ins lined up but I'm sure a couple will automatically go with CUSA like St. Pete and DC. The game in Mobile would quickly trade out the MAC for the CAA.

A lot of the CUSA West schools are hanging around with sights eventually set on Big XII, Big East or maybe even the MWC. It doesn't make sense for them to split when the real outliers are Marshall, UCF and ECU. UCF and ECU are also legit candidates for the Big East but not the Big XII. Think about SMU and Houston, they could go BE or Big XII.....with MWC an outside possibility if they get BCS status.

(04-03-2011 09:46 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 06:25 PM)ShoreBuc Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 02:31 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Conference USA should worry more about making sure the Texas members of that conference don't try an form a new conference.

Too late...We don't call it C-Tex for nothing. If they broke off and went their own way CUSA East would pick up some new teams and move on. Quite frankly it would not be the end of the world if CUSA West and East became part of more geographically realistic situations

CUSA West plus UTSA, UNT, La Tech could become the SWC II.

I don't think that is going to happen though because a new conference would be starting all over with bowl tie-ins, and NCAA revenue ect.

What would make more sense I think is for the CAA to add football and invite ECU, Marshall, and UCF from CUSA along with Buffalo, Temple, UMass of the MAC. Then invite Georgia st, James Madison, Old Dominion, Delaware to move up.

The CAA is now pulling in more in basketball credits than CUSA, so that won't be a problem there. It may take a few years to get the bowl tie-ins lined up but I'm sure a couple will automatically go with CUSA like St. Pete and DC. The game in Mobile would quickly trade out the MAC for the CAA.

A lot of the CUSA West schools are hanging around with sights eventually set on Big XII, Big East or maybe even the MWC. It doesn't make sense for them to split when the real outliers are Marshall, UCF and ECU. UCF and ECU are also legit candidates for the Big East but not the Big XII. Think about SMU and Houston, they could go BE or Big XII.....with MWC an outside possibility if they get BCS status.

The CAA isn't raiding C-USA. More likely, it will be the other way around.

With the death of the MWC, C-USA is the biggest non-AQ conference left standing.

(04-03-2011 10:38 PM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 09:46 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 06:25 PM)ShoreBuc Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 02:31 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  Conference USA should worry more about making sure the Texas members of that conference don't try an form a new conference.

Too late...We don't call it C-Tex for nothing. If they broke off and went their own way CUSA East would pick up some new teams and move on. Quite frankly it would not be the end of the world if CUSA West and East became part of more geographically realistic situations

CUSA West plus UTSA, UNT, La Tech could become the SWC II.

I don't think that is going to happen though because a new conference would be starting all over with bowl tie-ins, and NCAA revenue ect.

What would make more sense I think is for the CAA to add football and invite ECU, Marshall, and UCF from CUSA along with Buffalo, Temple, UMass of the MAC. Then invite Georgia st, James Madison, Old Dominion, Delaware to move up.

The CAA is now pulling in more in basketball credits than CUSA, so that won't be a problem there. It may take a few years to get the bowl tie-ins lined up but I'm sure a couple will automatically go with CUSA like St. Pete and DC. The game in Mobile would quickly trade out the MAC for the CAA.

A lot of the CUSA West schools are hanging around with sights eventually set on Big XII, Big East or maybe even the MWC. It doesn't make sense for them to split when the real outliers are Marshall, UCF and ECU. UCF and ECU are also legit candidates for the Big East but not the Big XII. Think about SMU and Houston, they could go BE or Big XII.....with MWC an outside possibility if they get BCS status.

The CAA isn't raiding C-USA. More likely, it will be the other way around.

With the death of the MWC, C-USA is the biggest non-AQ conference left standing.

No it isn't.

I would have to say the new MWC with Boise, Fresno, Nevada and Hawaii is still better top to bottom in FB at 10 FB members than CUSA.

If UCF and UH do get into CUSA, SMU, Rice an UTEP will have to give the MWC a hard look.

I don't think CUSA is expanding beyond 12, if they do lose schools it could be ECU and UCF, the schools most close to CAA territory. The only other schools in FBS really in CAA territory are UMass and Temple......I could see both try to head to CAA and start up a football conference.....maybe convince a few MAC schools to join in this situation.

(04-03-2011 11:00 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  No it isn't.

I would have to say the new MWC with Boise, Fresno, Nevada and Hawaii is still better top to bottom in FB at 10 FB members than CUSA.

If UCF and UH do get into CUSA, SMU, Rice an UTEP will have to give the MWC a hard look.

I don't think CUSA is expanding beyond 12, if they do lose schools it could be ECU and UCF, the schools most close to CAA territory. The only other schools in FBS really in CAA territory are UMass and Temple......I could see both try to head to CAA and start up a football conference.....maybe convince a few MAC schools to join in this situation.

Wow. Your post is so full of fail, I don't know where to begin.

The MWC is just the new name for the WAC. Half the old MWC left to be replaced by half the old WAC. They dropped considerably in both quality and in television market. Boise St., Nevada, Fresno, and Hawaii are no replacement for TCU, Utah State, BYU. The league downgraded in both football and basketball.

UCF and UH are in C-USA already. I guess you made a mistake and meant to say the Big East. That rumor has been buzzing around message boards for a while, but in reality that's where it ends. It's not going to happen.

C-USA is most likely not expanding beyond 12. The only way they do add anyone is if someone leaves, and that looks less likely every day. The current conference shuffle is most likely over for a few years.

UMass would never be under consideration. They have a mediocre basketball program and no FBS team. Plus, we don't really care about the Amherst television market (their penetration into Boston is minimal).

Temple could move in to replace a departing member right away. They have an FBS program that has played well lately and a pretty good basketball program. Plus, the Philly market is a nice one, even if they aren't the biggest show in town.

The CAA is NOWHERE near forming a FBS conference, so I can guarantee that they won't be raiding C-USA. The CAA needs to be more worried about C-USA taking ODU if they ever decide to move up to FBS status.

C-USA is most likely sitting tight for now. If one of the AQ conferences comes sniffing around, C-USA will raid some of the other non-AQ conferences for replacements. C-USA is at the top of the non-AQ pecking order and that's not likely to change any time soon.

(04-03-2011 11:19 PM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 11:00 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  No it isn't.

I would have to say the new MWC with Boise, Fresno, Nevada and Hawaii is still better top to bottom in FB at 10 FB members than CUSA.

If UCF and UH do get into CUSA, SMU, Rice an UTEP will have to give the MWC a hard look.

I don't think CUSA is expanding beyond 12, if they do lose schools it could be ECU and UCF, the schools most close to CAA territory. The only other schools in FBS really in CAA territory are UMass and Temple......I could see both try to head to CAA and start up a football conference.....maybe convince a few MAC schools to join in this situation.

Wow. Your post is so full of fail, I don't know where to begin.

The MWC is just the new name for the WAC. Half the old MWC left to be replaced by half the old WAC. They dropped considerably in both quality and in television market. Boise St., Nevada, Fresno, and Hawaii are no replacement for TCU, Utah State, BYU. The league downgraded in both football and basketball.

I agree that the MWC has taken a hit in the TV department especially by losing TCU, BYU, Utah but in football strength is about a wash.

Boise State replacing TCU (about an even trade)
Hawaii replacing BYU (BYU is better in some years, Hawaii is consistent)
Nevada/Fresno replacing Utah (Utah is clearly better but overall with both Nevada and Fresno combined its about a wash.)

The new MWC will at least be somewhere in strength between the old MWC and old WAC, and both conferences have fared better than CUSA football in recent years.

A new CAA football conference with Temple, UMass, Buffalo, Delaware, Charlotte, Miami, Ohio, JMU, ODU, Georgia St would be as good as CUSA in football and better in basketball. I don't think the current FCS schools in this lineup are quite ready to make the move but in 5 years they will be.

ECU and UCF are a realignment away (5-10 years) from joining the Big East. CUSA could reload with WKU/MTSU and do okay bridging the geography gap between Marshall and the remainder of the conference.

(04-04-2011 12:09 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 11:19 PM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 11:00 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  No it isn't.

I would have to say the new MWC with Boise, Fresno, Nevada and Hawaii is still better top to bottom in FB at 10 FB members than CUSA.

If UCF and UH do get into CUSA, SMU, Rice an UTEP will have to give the MWC a hard look.

I don't think CUSA is expanding beyond 12, if they do lose schools it could be ECU and UCF, the schools most close to CAA territory. The only other schools in FBS really in CAA territory are UMass and Temple......I could see both try to head to CAA and start up a football conference.....maybe convince a few MAC schools to join in this situation.

Wow. Your post is so full of fail, I don't know where to begin.

The MWC is just the new name for the WAC. Half the old MWC left to be replaced by half the old WAC. They dropped considerably in both quality and in television market. Boise St., Nevada, Fresno, and Hawaii are no replacement for TCU, Utah State, BYU. The league downgraded in both football and basketball.

I agree that the MWC has taken a hit in the TV department especially by losing TCU, BYU, Utah but in football strength is about a wash.

Boise State replacing TCU (about an even trade)
Hawaii replacing BYU (BYU is better in some years, Hawaii is consistent)
Nevada/Fresno replacing Utah (Utah is clearly better but overall with both Nevada and Fresno combined its about a wash.)

The new MWC will at least be somewhere in strength between the old MWC and old WAC, and both conferences have fared better than CUSA football in recent years.

A new CAA football conference with Temple, UMass, Buffalo, Delaware, Charlotte, Miami, Ohio, JMU, ODU, Georgia St would be as good as CUSA in football and better in basketball. I don't think the current FCS schools in this lineup are quite ready to make the move but in 5 years they will be.

ECU and UCF are a realignment away (5-10 years) from joining the Big East. CUSA could reload with WKU/MTSU and do okay bridging the geography gap between Marshall and the remainder of the conference.

Wow. Even more fail in your follow-up.

Losing the entire state of Utah was a major blow. Take out Utah and BYU and you also take out the Mormons across the country who watch their games. Losing the TCU market and adding the Boise market is a HUGE drop in television revenue.

The old MWC has fared better than C-USA but the old WAC has been carried by Boise State. After that, there's not much. Take the top part of the MWC away and replace it with the top of the WAC, and the MWC is much weaker. The WAC has moved to the bottom with the MAC and the Sun Belt. C-USA is the new non-AQ power.

A CAA football conference, which already exists at the FCS level, would average fewer fans than the dead last MAC if they moved up to FBS level. They'd also get their arses kicked week-in and week-out by being forced to play a REAL schedule. As for basketball, C-USA is still head and shoulders above the CAA.

No way in hell the CAA raids C-USA. It will never happen.

If the CAA ever does man up and move to FBS, they're likely to be raided by the other conferences instead.

(04-04-2011 12:22 AM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  

(04-04-2011 12:09 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 11:19 PM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  

(04-03-2011 11:00 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  No it isn't.

I would have to say the new MWC with Boise, Fresno, Nevada and Hawaii is still better top to bottom in FB at 10 FB members than CUSA.

If UCF and UH do get into CUSA, SMU, Rice an UTEP will have to give the MWC a hard look.

I don't think CUSA is expanding beyond 12, if they do lose schools it could be ECU and UCF, the schools most close to CAA territory. The only other schools in FBS really in CAA territory are UMass and Temple......I could see both try to head to CAA and start up a football conference.....maybe convince a few MAC schools to join in this situation.

Wow. Your post is so full of fail, I don't know where to begin.

The MWC is just the new name for the WAC. Half the old MWC left to be replaced by half the old WAC. They dropped considerably in both quality and in television market. Boise St., Nevada, Fresno, and Hawaii are no replacement for TCU, Utah State, BYU. The league downgraded in both football and basketball.

I agree that the MWC has taken a hit in the TV department especially by losing TCU, BYU, Utah but in football strength is about a wash.

Boise State replacing TCU (about an even trade)
Hawaii replacing BYU (BYU is better in some years, Hawaii is consistent)
Nevada/Fresno replacing Utah (Utah is clearly better but overall with both Nevada and Fresno combined its about a wash.)

The new MWC will at least be somewhere in strength between the old MWC and old WAC, and both conferences have fared better than CUSA football in recent years.

A new CAA football conference with Temple, UMass, Buffalo, Delaware, Charlotte, Miami, Ohio, JMU, ODU, Georgia St would be as good as CUSA in football and better in basketball. I don't think the current FCS schools in this lineup are quite ready to make the move but in 5 years they will be.

ECU and UCF are a realignment away (5-10 years) from joining the Big East. CUSA could reload with WKU/MTSU and do okay bridging the geography gap between Marshall and the remainder of the conference.

Wow. Even more fail in your follow-up.

Losing the entire state of Utah was a major blow. Take out Utah and BYU and you also take out the Mormons across the country who watch their games. Losing the TCU market and adding the Boise market is a HUGE drop in television revenue.

The old MWC has fared better than C-USA but the old WAC has been carried by Boise State. After that, there's not much. Take the top part of the MWC away and replace it with the top of the WAC, and the MWC is much weaker. The WAC has moved to the bottom with the MAC and the Sun Belt. C-USA is the new non-AQ power.

A CAA football conference, which already exists at the FCS level, would average fewer fans than the dead last MAC if they moved up to FBS level. They'd also get their arses kicked week-in and week-out by being forced to play a REAL schedule. As for basketball, C-USA is still head and shoulders above the CAA.

No way in hell the CAA raids C-USA. It will never happen.

If the CAA ever does man up and move to FBS, they're likely to be raided by the other conferences instead.

The CAA is better than CUSA in basketball right now. The CAA placed 3 in the NCAA tourney to CUSA's 2. The CAA has more basketball units from the NCAA now than CUSA.

(04-04-2011 12:49 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The CAA is better than CUSA in basketball right now. The CAA placed 3 in the NCAA tourney to CUSA's 2. The CAA has more basketball units from the NCAA now than CUSA.

That would be fine if both conferences only had three teams, but they don't.

The RPI averages of the conferences show C-USA with a clear lead over the CAA. C-USA also went 106-53 OOC while the CAA went 88-63. C-USA had eight of twelve members ranked in the top 100 RPIs. CAA had six of twelve.

C-USA is much better than the CAA in basketball.

(04-04-2011 12:57 AM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  

(04-04-2011 12:49 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The CAA is better than CUSA in basketball right now. The CAA placed 3 in the NCAA tourney to CUSA's 2. The CAA has more basketball units from the NCAA now than CUSA.

That would be fine if both conferences only had three teams, but they don't.

The RPI averages of the conferences show C-USA with a clear lead over the CAA. C-USA also went 106-53 OOC while the CAA went 88-63. C-USA had eight of twelve members ranked in the top 100 RPIs. CAA had six of twelve.

C-USA is much better than the CAA in basketball.

RPI ratings don't count. The only thing that really counts is NCAA tourney money and the CAA is ahead in that after VCU's run. Both leagues are virtually tied though in basketball money.

The CAA is better than the MAC in basketball and that might be enough to tempt MAC schools to joining. I dont like how the CAA tourney is played in Richmond. With an expanded league they could move the CAA tourney to a higher profile and easier to get to city like Washington DC.

The geography for Temple and Umass is about the same whether they play in the A10 or CAA so it might be enough to convince them to come over to form a new football conference that would be better positioned than the MAC. It doesn't hurt that CAA basketball has improved to the point where it is almost on par with the A10.

The CAA football league would bump the MAC in the Mobile bowl and bump CUSA in DC. They could probably get another bowl set up in Boston with Umass in tow. Fairly quickly the CAA could have a bowl package at least equal to the MAC, if not better.

(04-04-2011 01:15 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(04-04-2011 12:57 AM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  

(04-04-2011 12:49 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The CAA is better than CUSA in basketball right now. The CAA placed 3 in the NCAA tourney to CUSA's 2. The CAA has more basketball units from the NCAA now than CUSA.

That would be fine if both conferences only had three teams, but they don't.

The RPI averages of the conferences show C-USA with a clear lead over the CAA. C-USA also went 106-53 OOC while the CAA went 88-63. C-USA had eight of twelve members ranked in the top 100 RPIs. CAA had six of twelve.

C-USA is much better than the CAA in basketball.

RPI ratings don't count. The only thing that really counts is NCAA tourney money and the CAA is ahead in that after VCU's run. Both leagues are virtually tied though in basketball money.

The CAA is better than the MAC in basketball and that might be enough to tempt MAC schools to joining. I dont like how the CAA tourney is played in Richmond. With an expanded league they could move the CAA tourney to a higher profile and easier to get to city like Washington DC.

The geography for Temple and Umass is about the same whether they play in the A10 or CAA so it might be enough to convince them to come over to form a new football conference that would be better positioned than the MAC. It doesn't hurt that CAA basketball has improved to the point where it is almost on par with the A10.

The CAA football league would bump the MAC in the Mobile bowl and bump CUSA in DC. They could probably get another bowl set up in Boston with Umass in tow. Fairly quickly the CAA could have a bowl package at least equal to the MAC, if not better.

Yep, you failed hard out of the gate with your first statement. RPI does matter when strength of conference is concerned. NCAA credits don't. VCU played mediocre basketball all season long and decided to get off their butts and play above their heads at the end of the season. But if you want to play the money card, let's look at television contracts. C-USA makes significantly more in television money than the CAA does.

No matter how you look at it, the CAA is a downgrade.

(04-04-2011 01:22 AM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  

(04-04-2011 01:15 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(04-04-2011 12:57 AM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  

(04-04-2011 12:49 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The CAA is better than CUSA in basketball right now. The CAA placed 3 in the NCAA tourney to CUSA's 2. The CAA has more basketball units from the NCAA now than CUSA.

That would be fine if both conferences only had three teams, but they don't.

The RPI averages of the conferences show C-USA with a clear lead over the CAA. C-USA also went 106-53 OOC while the CAA went 88-63. C-USA had eight of twelve members ranked in the top 100 RPIs. CAA had six of twelve.

C-USA is much better than the CAA in basketball.

RPI ratings don't count. The only thing that really counts is NCAA tourney money and the CAA is ahead in that after VCU's run. Both leagues are virtually tied though in basketball money.

The CAA is better than the MAC in basketball and that might be enough to tempt MAC schools to joining. I dont like how the CAA tourney is played in Richmond. With an expanded league they could move the CAA tourney to a higher profile and easier to get to city like Washington DC.

The geography for Temple and Umass is about the same whether they play in the A10 or CAA so it might be enough to convince them to come over to form a new football conference that would be better positioned than the MAC. It doesn't hurt that CAA basketball has improved to the point where it is almost on par with the A10.

The CAA football league would bump the MAC in the Mobile bowl and bump CUSA in DC. They could probably get another bowl set up in Boston with Umass in tow. Fairly quickly the CAA could have a bowl package at least equal to the MAC, if not better.

Yep, you failed hard out of the gate with your first statement. RPI does matter when strength of conference is concerned. NCAA credits don't. VCU played mediocre basketball all season long and decided to get off their butts and play above their heads at the end of the season. But if you want to play the money card, let's look at television contracts. C-USA makes significantly more in television money than the CAA does.

No matter how you look at it, the CAA is a downgrade.

You need to enroll in logic class.

RPI affects the number of tourney teams a league has over the past 5 years the CAA has been roughly equal in RPI to CUSA.

Its possible that the overall RPI rating of a league exceeds that of a conference that places more schools in the tourney on a given year. So what that isn't really important.

What is important is how much money that a league is making in NCAA tourney revenue, the only true source of basketball revenue for a non-BCS conference (all the money earned by CUSA from TV is driven by football money).

The CAA is slightly ahead in tourney money over CUSA. Between the two leagues then its basically a wash. The CAA though is greatly ahead of the MAC now and into the foreseeable future and that is why I think its possible to recruit MAC schools over to form a new CAA football league that would likely make more football money than the MAC.

(04-04-2011 01:39 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(04-04-2011 01:22 AM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  

(04-04-2011 01:15 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(04-04-2011 12:57 AM)the other Greg Childers Wrote:  

(04-04-2011 12:49 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  The CAA is better than CUSA in basketball right now. The CAA placed 3 in the NCAA tourney to CUSA's 2. The CAA has more basketball units from the NCAA now than CUSA.

That would be fine if both conferences only had three teams, but they don't.

The RPI averages of the conferences show C-USA with a clear lead over the CAA. C-USA also went 106-53 OOC while the CAA went 88-63. C-USA had eight of twelve members ranked in the top 100 RPIs. CAA had six of twelve.

C-USA is much better than the CAA in basketball.

RPI ratings don't count. The only thing that really counts is NCAA tourney money and the CAA is ahead in that after VCU's run. Both leagues are virtually tied though in basketball money.

The CAA is better than the MAC in basketball and that might be enough to tempt MAC schools to joining. I dont like how the CAA tourney is played in Richmond. With an expanded league they could move the CAA tourney to a higher profile and easier to get to city like Washington DC.

The geography for Temple and Umass is about the same whether they play in the A10 or CAA so it might be enough to convince them to come over to form a new football conference that would be better positioned than the MAC. It doesn't hurt that CAA basketball has improved to the point where it is almost on par with the A10.

The CAA football league would bump the MAC in the Mobile bowl and bump CUSA in DC. They could probably get another bowl set up in Boston with Umass in tow. Fairly quickly the CAA could have a bowl package at least equal to the MAC, if not better.

Yep, you failed hard out of the gate with your first statement. RPI does matter when strength of conference is concerned. NCAA credits don't. VCU played mediocre basketball all season long and decided to get off their butts and play above their heads at the end of the season. But if you want to play the money card, let's look at television contracts. C-USA makes significantly more in television money than the CAA does.

No matter how you look at it, the CAA is a downgrade.

You need to enroll in logic class.

RPI affects the number of tourney teams a league has over the past 5 years the CAA has been roughly equal in RPI to CUSA.

Its possible that the overall RPI rating of a league exceeds that of a conference that places more schools in the tourney on a given year. So what that isn't really important.

What is important is how much money that a league is making in NCAA tourney revenue, the only true source of basketball revenue for a non-BCS conference (all the money earned by CUSA from TV is driven by football money).

The CAA is slightly ahead in tourney money over CUSA. Between the two leagues then its basically a wash. The CAA though is greatly ahead of the MAC now and into the foreseeable future and that is why I think its possible to recruit MAC schools over to form a new CAA football league that would likely make more football money than the MAC.

You really don't understand the RPI do you?

It has nothing to do with the number of tournament teams a league has. It has everything to do with a conference's win/loss record and strength of schedule. And C-USA has a higher overall RPI than the CAA.

The CAA may be ahead of the MAC in basketball, but that's not a very high bar to hurdle. The CAA is nowhere near as high as C-USA which has a much better television contract and also has FBS football revenue which the CAA does not have. It's not even close. C-USA has the best television contract of any non-AQ conference, even better than the MWC.

Seriously, this is an argument you can't win.

TOGC telling it to some Ohio loner.
This is just CLASSIC

APP State is not your run of the mill FCS school. Any way should know something by June 2011.

ASU continues study of possible move to FBS
By Tommy Bowman Winston Salem Journal
Published: March 30, 2011

A feasibility-study committee is continuing to explore how well Appalachian State, a "big fish" in the Football Championship Subdivision, could swim in Football Bowl Subdivision waters.

The committee met again last Friday, and the focus remains largely on financing a possible move. "We're getting closer to putting the costs and the revenue streams together and seeing where we stand," said G.A. Sywassink, the co-chairman of the committee. "We should start in the real decision-making process probably the next meeting, which is in mid-April.

"We've gathered the information we need. Basically, we're getting there, and we're still having our focus groups — we're going to add a couple of additional focus groups of students and faculty to give everybody a chance to take part — so we're getting close to where we can start putting all the pieces together and see what a decision looks like."

ASU, which competes in Division I in all sports as a member of the Southern Conference, has been part of the FCS (formerly Division I-AA) since 1981. FCS programs can offer as many as 63 scholarships, compared to 85 in the FBS.

A moratorium on moving from the FCS to the FBS has been in place since 2007 but will be lifted in August.

A move to the FBS would cost more but also would generate more revenue. ASU has an athletics budget of about $14 million and operates in the black. The key is a possible gap between increased costs to play in the FBS and increased revenue.

"We (athletics) don't get state funds, we have to figure out how we can pay for it, which we're getting close to, without putting additional burdens on the students," Sywassink said. "We'll probably show an increase in revenue from student fees, but that would primarily be from an increase in the number of students enrolled in the school over the years to come . . .  We are looking only at an increase in student-fee revenue based only on any increase in enrollment, the number of students paying."

A challenge for the committee is to accurately estimate the expected costs and the potential revenue of a move, with variables involved including an unanswered question of the conference where ASU might fit.

"We're looking at years to come," Sywassink said. "And there are a lot of benefits otherwise as well that you have to look at and try to quantify. You look at the future and make projections.

"Hopefully, we're making them conservatively and realistically. Our goal is not to put any projections out there that are pie in the sky just to make a decision. They've got to be real and we have to feel very confident that they're realistic.

"We can't yet say we're there, but we're getting pretty close."

Sywassink said the committee is looking at financial aspects "in line with the fact that we will not put it on the backs of the students and we will not do anything that would negatively impact the academic side of things."

A move would require a bigger operating budget, and additional costs would include the funding of more scholarships, increased staffing and salary upgrades in line with whatever conference ASU might join and a potential increase in travel costs, depending on the conference.

Increased revenue from a move to an FBS conference would come from more NCAA tournament revenue for basketball as part of a larger conference, as well as bowl-game and television-revenue shares, bigger paychecks for road games against FBS opponents and an additional (12th) regular-season football game.

Projections will include an increase in booster contributions to fund more scholarships, and probable higher ticket costs for football games, although Sywassink said, "We want to keep ticket prices in line."

The committee is working to determine what the gap between costs and revenue might be.

"There can't be a gap when it's done," Sywassink. "We've got to figure out how we can pay for it, and we're making some good progress on that.

"It all comes down to it's got to be financially feasible without state money, it can't be on the backs of the students and it has to enhance the academic side of the equation."

The committee's focus will shift more to conference possibilities in coming days. Sywassink said that exploratory work has been done and that several conference-affiliation scenarios are being discussed.

"Our committee will do further investigation and work and maybe even some meetings on that over the next couple of months, the sooner the better," he said. "We're trying to schedule those now.

"We're still looking at trying to determine if there's an interest (from an FBS conference). We have quite a bit to do over the next eight weeks."

The committee has targeted May for a recommendation to be made to Chancellor Ken Peacock, who will then make his recommendation to ASU's board of trustees, probably in June.

THERE ARE NO UPDATES. ******* **** THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN AT ALL.

Fixed that.

Its funny listening to App talk about moving up. They have convinced themselves their facilities are at the CUSA level (although they are nowhere near ECU, UCF, and USM, the most competitive programs in the conference). And not only do they talk about the costs of moving up in terms of scholarships, but they say they are unwilling to raise student fees to participate at the D-1 level and are going to try to hold the costs on tickets. Seriously?

App's administration must be as delusional as their fans to think they are already paying for a D-1 program or to think that a D-1 program doesnt COST more. App doesnt have the money, period. Their fans dont have the money and they dont have the facilities to generate the money via OOC scheduling. ECU isnt coming up the mountain to play, because the facilities cant hold the amount of fans. App's home schedule if they move up is going to go from Wofford and Elon to Western Kentucky and South Alabama. Good luck getting a bunch more per ticket for that.

CUSA has no need for App even if a program left. FAU has a brand new 30,000 seat stadium and is a much larger program and is just down from a great recruiting area at South Beach. Temple has much better facilities then App. MTSU is located just South of Nashville and has more suppport of their program then App. As I said, App's administration and, in turn, their fanbase, is delusional to what they actually are. They would be a run of the mill program in the Sun Belt.

I cannot wait until the Equity in Athletics website gets updated with everyone's 2010-11 budget numbers so we can see who really is spending what and all of these feasibility studies are just smoke. The bottom line is do you have the cash to pay for an FBS program. If your budget for athletics is much less than say $23 to $25 million then the answer should probably be no.

Quote:ASU has an athletics budget of about $14 million and operates in the black. The key is a possible gap between increased costs to play in the FBS and increased revenue.

It will take a hell of a lot more money than that to compete at the FBS level.

The title of the thread was are there any updates so I gave one.

Well it will be 2 years if we announced before the move to FBS would take place. We have plenty of room to expand the stadium and have been in the 28,000 to 30,00 attendance range for a few years. Of course the budget would have to be upped if the move was made. Really no need to up it right now.

(04-08-2011 10:21 AM)Dman Wrote:  The title of the thread was are there any updates so I gave one.

Well it will be 2 years if we announced before the move to FBS would take place. We have plenty of room to expand the stadium and have been in the 28,000 to 30,00 attendance range for a few years. Of course the budget would have to be upped if the move was made. Really no need to up it right now.

And I responded to that update with.....What are they thinking????

No offense but that stadium looks like the worst Sun Belt/WAC/MAC stadiums and it appears to have a significant "TRACK" problem. Not only does the track need to be done away with for the long term success of an FBS program but that would also require the destruction of the mountain side seating and rebuilding of its end zone seating. The buildings and main entrance on the opposite end zone would have to be re-done as well in the FBS.

Again, App administration and fans have convinced themselves that they are ready for FBS success without raising ticket prices or student fees. That is the exact opposite approach they wil have to take, they will have to raise student fees to help fund an FBS program and take on debt for facility upgrades to be partially paid for with ticket price increases. Need I remind that this is the same administration that used to celebrate "competitive losses" on its athletics website, used the phrase "above all the rest" when promoting its program and had a "Hot, Hot, Hot" promotional video for the school, which is the exact opposite of its climate.

"Delusional" is a nice word to describe their I-AA success.