(01-15-2012 06:04 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I'd prefer Temple to Tech, but I don't think they'd come. I prefer Tech to most Sun Belt or WAC schools though.

i agree...why not CUSA stay at 9...MWC adds Utah State...two 9 team conferences merge into one 18 team conference?

At the risk of opening a can of worms on the CUSA board, maybe one of you Techsters can QC me up on a question I've had for a while: How the hell did you end up in the WAC in the first place?

(01-15-2012 06:16 PM)Smaug Wrote:  At the risk of opening a can of worms on the CUSA board, maybe one of you Techsters can QC me up on a question I've had for a while: How the hell did you end up in the WAC in the first place?

TCU left and SMU, UTEP, Tulsa, and Rice needed a 5th team for the Eastern side of the WAC. Tech was the replacement for TCU.

What's with all this Temple or nobody talk? I'm not opposed to them, but a lot of you act like they bring so much more than anyone else. I get that their basketball is pretty good, but that's would be nothing more than a bonus. Football is the engine that's driving the train concerning expansion. I get the market angle, I just don't understand why anyone here would be concerned with that one way or another.

I think it's time for C-USA to try something different. Focus on putting quality football on the field, rather than whatever team is located in whatever big market. If both can be had, great, but I just don't think we need another crap football team in a large city whose own fans don't even care.

I bet La Tech fans would travel a whole lot better than anybody from Philly would.

(01-15-2012 06:24 PM)Big Dub Wrote:  What's with all this Temple or nobody talk? I'm not opposed to them, but a lot of you act like they bring so much more than anyone else. I get that their basketball is pretty good, but that's would be nothing more than a bonus. Football is the engine that's driving the train concerning expansion. I get the market angle, I just don't understand why anyone here would be concerned with that one way or another.

I think it's time for C-USA to try something different. Focus on putting quality football on the field, rather than whatever team is located in whatever big market. If both can be had, great, but I just don't think we need another crap football team in a large city whose own fans don't even care.

I bet La Tech fans would travel a whole lot better than anybody from Philly would.

guess you haven't looked at Temple football in awhile...

2011: 9-4
2010: 8-4
2009: 9-4

i know USM doesn't care about basketball, but Tech adds nothing market wise, basketball wise, and they've only had 3 bowls in the last 19 years.

Temple brings Philly...a NFL stadium...good football...good basketball...and a good athletic budget.

if they say no...stay at 9

(01-15-2012 06:30 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  i know USM doesn't care about basketball, but Tech adds nothing market wise, basketball wise, and they've only had 3 bowls in the last 19 years.

Tech and USM have a lot in common. We believe the deep south is a football region. Basketball is for sissies. We are overshadowed by the SEC, and have a chip on our shoulder. We don't think markets make a good team. We have a tradition of many hard-fought games against each other and the old-timers remember the "Rivalry in Dixie." In the past 40 years, USM leads Tech 10-6 and the average score has been 20-17. There is mutual respect.

(01-15-2012 06:30 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  guess you haven't looked at Temple football in awhile...

2011: 9-4
2010: 8-4
2009: 9-4

i know USM doesn't care about basketball, but Tech adds nothing market wise, basketball wise, and they've only had 3 bowls in the last 19 years.

Temple brings Philly...a NFL stadium...good football...good basketball...and a good athletic budget.

if they say no...stay at 9

I know Memphis doesn't care about football, so I have a few pertinent questions:

So Temple has won their conference exactly how many times?
When has expansion ever been about basketball?
How many bowls has Temple been to in the last 19 years?
How is a stadium that's 75% empty impressive?
As a fan, how does Temple's "market" matter to you?

Like I said I'm not opposed to them, I'm just tired of being in a conference where the fans of USM's natural rivals (Memphis included) don't care about their own football programs. We have enough teams already in conference where travel is difficult and others who have no fan support.

Anyone who prefers La Tech over Temple needs to get drug tested. La Tech sucks and Temple rocks.

(01-15-2012 06:39 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(01-15-2012 06:30 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  i know USM doesn't care about basketball, but Tech adds nothing market wise, basketball wise, and they've only had 3 bowls in the last 19 years.

Tech and USM have a lot in common. We believe the deep south is a football region. Basketball is for sissies. We are overshadowed by the SEC, and have a chip on our shoulder. We don't think markets make a good team. We have a tradition of many hard-fought games against each other and the old-timers remember the "Rivalry in Dixie." In the past 40 years, USM leads Tech 10-6 and the average score has been 20-17. There is mutual respect.

Quit pretending you're anything other than crap in football. As bad as Memphis has been in football, we've been to more bowls in the last decade than you have.

Go away troll. We don't want you here.

(01-15-2012 06:07 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(01-15-2012 06:04 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I'd prefer Temple to Tech, but I don't think they'd come. I prefer Tech to most Sun Belt or WAC schools though.

i agree...why not CUSA stay at 9...MWC adds Utah State...two 9 team conferences merge into one 18 team conference?

I've argued the above before, but nobody's ever thrown out any situations as to why this wouldn't work as the easiest "fix" at the moment.

For those of you who are for adding Temple... my argument against them is as follows:

The Big East warned them to spend money to improve their football program or they would be kicked out. Temple thought they'd win the BE-Temple Mexican Standoff because of their basketball program.... They didn't.

in fact, they didn't start spending money on their program until AFTER they were kicked out, because it was an "Oh $#!T, we blew it!" situation.
But I don't think there is any desire by them to continue to try to improve their athletic program beyond what they are.... a basketball program, who will occasionally have good cycles in MAC football (and were lucky the MAC was there to pick them up after they got the BE boot).

Ironically, I think they (the BE) will find themselves in the exact same situation with Villanova when they make the official football move up...

(01-15-2012 06:55 PM)Big Dub Wrote:  

(01-15-2012 06:30 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  guess you haven't looked at Temple football in awhile...

2011: 9-4
2010: 8-4
2009: 9-4

i know USM doesn't care about basketball, but Tech adds nothing market wise, basketball wise, and they've only had 3 bowls in the last 19 years.

Temple brings Philly...a NFL stadium...good football...good basketball...and a good athletic budget.

if they say no...stay at 9

I know Memphis doesn't care about football, so I have a few pertinent questions:

So Temple has won their conference exactly how many times?
When has expansion ever been about basketball?
How many bowls has Temple been to in the last 19 years?
How is a stadium that's 75% empty impressive?
As a fan, how does Temple's "market" matter to you?

Like I said I'm not opposed to them, I'm just tired of being in a conference where the fans of USM's natural rivals (Memphis included) don't care about their own football programs. We have enough teams already in conference where travel is difficult and others who have no fan support.

last i checked...Memphis has played in 5 bowls the last decade...Tech has 3.

during those seasons...Memphis averaged ~35-40k per season.

Memphis (the City) invested 20 million into the Liberty Bowl.

markets drive expansion...because markets = TV dollars.

(01-15-2012 07:12 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(01-15-2012 06:07 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(01-15-2012 06:04 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I'd prefer Temple to Tech, but I don't think they'd come. I prefer Tech to most Sun Belt or WAC schools though.

i agree...why not CUSA stay at 9...MWC adds Utah State...two 9 team conferences merge into one 18 team conference?

I've argued this one before, but nobody's ever thrown out any situations as to why this wouldn't work as the easiest "fix" at the moment.

It appears that UTEP wants to move West since Houston and SMU left. That gives MWC 9 and CUSA 8. I think this all hinges on what UTEP does. If they stay in CUSA, Utah State will be added to the MWC. If they move to the MWC, Louisiana Tech will be added to CUSA. However, the alliance could also be more than 18 teams too. It will be interesting to hear what they talked about today.

(01-15-2012 07:12 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(01-15-2012 06:07 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(01-15-2012 06:04 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I'd prefer Temple to Tech, but I don't think they'd come. I prefer Tech to most Sun Belt or WAC schools though.

i agree...why not CUSA stay at 9...MWC adds Utah State...two 9 team conferences merge into one 18 team conference?

I've argued this one before, but nobody's ever thrown out any situations as to why this wouldn't work as the easiest "fix" at the moment.

For those of you who are for adding Temple... my argument against them is as follows:

The Big East warned them to spend money to improve their football program or they would be kicked out. Temple thought they'd win the BE-Temple Mexican Standoff because of their basketball program.... They didn't.

in fact, they didn't start spending money on their program until AFTER they were kicked out, because it was an "Oh $#!T, we blew it!" situation.
But I don't think there is any desire by them to continue to try to improve their athletic program beyond what they are.... a basketball program, who will occasionally have good cycles in MAC football (and were lucky the MAC was there to pick them up after they got the BE boot).

Ironically, I think they (the BE) will find themselves in the exact same situation with Villanova when they make the official football move up...

Your arguement holds no water what so ever and shows you know little to nothing about Temple. Temple was a FOOTBALL only member in the BE. Their basketball and olympic sports was and are in the A10.

(01-15-2012 07:12 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(01-15-2012 06:07 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(01-15-2012 06:04 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I'd prefer Temple to Tech, but I don't think they'd come. I prefer Tech to most Sun Belt or WAC schools though.

i agree...why not CUSA stay at 9...MWC adds Utah State...two 9 team conferences merge into one 18 team conference?

I've argued this one before, but nobody's ever thrown out any situations as to why this wouldn't work as the easiest "fix" at the moment.

For those of you who are for adding Temple... my argument against them is as follows:

The Big East warned them to spend money to improve their football program or they would be kicked out. Temple thought they'd win the BE-Temple Mexican Standoff because of their basketball program.... They didn't.

in fact, they didn't start spending money on their program until AFTER they were kicked out, because it was an "Oh $#!T, we blew it!" situation.
But I don't think there is any desire by them to continue to try to improve their athletic program beyond what they are.... a basketball program, who will occasionally have good cycles in MAC football (and were lucky the MAC was there to pick them up after they got the BE boot).

Ironically, I think they (the BE) will find themselves in the exact same situation with Villanova when they make the official football move up...

I doubt the bolded. The reason is that Temple's basketball program was never in the BE so the BE never had anything to lose from ditching Temple at the time outside a dead football program. If Nova (with the other non-football school support) would allow it Temple may have gotten into the BE a long time ago and then they would still be there. You don't see conferences kicking out full members directly often (you may see them leave the team behind though). In fact I only know of one which was the MAC booting out Marshal for cheating too much. Not sure if there are any others (though there could be).

(01-15-2012 06:20 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(01-15-2012 06:16 PM)Smaug Wrote:  At the risk of opening a can of worms on the CUSA board, maybe one of you Techsters can QC me up on a question I've had for a while: How the hell did you end up in the WAC in the first place?

TCU left and SMU, UTEP, Tulsa, and Rice needed a 5th team for the Eastern side of the WAC. Tech was the replacement for TCU.

So what, if any, conference were you in before that?

(01-15-2012 07:17 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  last i checked...Memphis has played in 5 bowls the last decade...Tech has 3.

during those seasons...Memphis averaged ~35-40k per season.

Memphis (the City) invested 20 million into the Liberty Bowl.

What the hell does that have to do with Temple? Where did those 35-40K fans go?

(01-15-2012 07:17 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  markets drive expansion...because markets = TV dollars.

At the moment, there's no denying that. I just wonder at what point does that strategy start producing diminishing returns?

You may argue how much money larger markets can bring in but you cannot get any money out of a small market.

(01-15-2012 07:17 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(01-15-2012 07:12 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(01-15-2012 06:07 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(01-15-2012 06:04 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I'd prefer Temple to Tech, but I don't think they'd come. I prefer Tech to most Sun Belt or WAC schools though.

i agree...why not CUSA stay at 9...MWC adds Utah State...two 9 team conferences merge into one 18 team conference?

I've argued this one before, but nobody's ever thrown out any situations as to why this wouldn't work as the easiest "fix" at the moment.

It appears that UTEP wants to move West since Houston and SMU left. That gives MWC 9 and CUSA 8. I think this all hinges on what UTEP does. If they stay in CUSA, Utah State will be added to the MWC. If they move to the MWC, Louisiana Tech will be added to CUSA. However, the alliance could also be more than 18 teams too. It will be interesting to hear what they talked about today.

I don't believe it's a given as you assume...

(01-15-2012 07:18 PM)HerdZoned Wrote:  

(01-15-2012 07:12 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(01-15-2012 06:07 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(01-15-2012 06:04 PM)Chappy Wrote:  I'd prefer Temple to Tech, but I don't think they'd come. I prefer Tech to most Sun Belt or WAC schools though.

i agree...why not CUSA stay at 9...MWC adds Utah State...two 9 team conferences merge into one 18 team conference?

I've argued this one before, but nobody's ever thrown out any situations as to why this wouldn't work as the easiest "fix" at the moment.

For those of you who are for adding Temple... my argument against them is as follows:

The Big East warned them to spend money to improve their football program or they would be kicked out. Temple thought they'd win the BE-Temple Mexican Standoff because of their basketball program.... They didn't.

in fact, they didn't start spending money on their program until AFTER they were kicked out, because it was an "Oh $#!T, we blew it!" situation.
But I don't think there is any desire by them to continue to try to improve their athletic program beyond what they are.... a basketball program, who will occasionally have good cycles in MAC football (and were lucky the MAC was there to pick them up after they got the BE boot).

Ironically, I think they (the BE) will find themselves in the exact same situation with Villanova when they make the official football move up...

Your arguement holds no water what so ever and shows you know little to nothing about Temple. Temple was a FOOTBALL only member in the BE. Their basketball and olympic sports was and are in the A10.

beh... (dunno why I had them in the BE in my head).. still doesn't change the argument they were asked to spend money on football and didn't, and it cost them a slot in the football BCS world.

Again, the BE has admitted that football was their driving force in expansion (see the comments about the lack of interest over the basketball downgrade with Houston, SMU, UCF vs. what they had). SO if football is the driving force, then it should be the driving force for any potential expansion for C-USA/MWC..

All our other C-USA schools have spent tons of money on stadium upgrades and such... if Temple refused once, what's to make us think they wouldn't refuse again.

To me the fact that they're in Philadelphia (or the philly market) means nothing if they're not going to put money into their product consistently to keep it on the upgrowth.

(01-15-2012 07:20 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(01-15-2012 06:20 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(01-15-2012 06:16 PM)Smaug Wrote:  At the risk of opening a can of worms on the CUSA board, maybe one of you Techsters can QC me up on a question I've had for a while: How the hell did you end up in the WAC in the first place?

TCU left and SMU, UTEP, Tulsa, and Rice needed a 5th team for the Eastern side of the WAC. Tech was the replacement for TCU.

So what, if any, conference were you in before that?

Tech was in the Southland Conference for a long time, which was basically the Sun Belt. Then we decided to go FBS and we were Independent from 1989-1992. Then we joined the Big West Conference for 3 years, which was a crazy conference like the new MWC/CUSA proposal (Tech, UNLV, Nevada, NM State, Northern Illinois, San Jose St, ULL, Utah State, Arkansas St, etc..). That didn't work, so we went back to Independent from 1996 until 2000, when we joined the WAC.