It boggles the mind to see some folks scrambling to get an invite to the extremely weakened C-USA. If they hadn't lost the big dawg programs that jumped ship to the Big East then I'd understand. However, at this point, C-USA offers basically the same competition as the Belt but at twice the travel cost. Once they lose their TV and bowl packages, because of this fact, those of you drooling over that ugly little jersey patch will feel silly.

(05-21-2012 05:18 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  It boggles the mind to see some folks scrambling to get an invite to the extremely weakened C-USA. If they hadn't lost the big dawg programs that jumped ship to the Big East then I'd understand. However, at this point, C-USA offers basically the same competition as the Belt but at twice the travel cost. Once they lose their TV and bowl packages, because of this fact, those of you drooling over that ugly little jersey patch will feel silly.

I honestly don't know how you can claim that travel cost wil double for schools moving from the Sun Belt to CUSA. The travel cost at UNT will actually go down. The TV and bowl package hasn't be lost yet. It will most certainly be revised, but you can't say what the end result will be at this time. The TV and bowl package will in all probability exceed the Sun Belt's. We should find out soon.

(05-21-2012 01:59 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  see thats just it. We do believe that. That is why we are where we are and you are not. Tech always believes in greater things and pushed for it. While you guys sat and biotched and moaned and criticizing us for thinking too big, we continued to believe and got everything we wanted.

See, this is why people get so irritated at La Tech fans. Every team in the Belt has done their best to make any improvements that they could. We have all been hoping for that move up. As far as USM and ECU, I think we've shown that we can hang with USM. ECU is nice with their attendance, and all of the bowl game Conf USA has...for now.

(05-21-2012 07:23 PM)BlueRaiderFan. Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 01:59 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  see thats just it. We do believe that. That is why we are where we are and you are not. Tech always believes in greater things and pushed for it. While you guys sat and biotched and moaned and criticizing us for thinking too big, we continued to believe and got everything we wanted.

See, this is why people get so irritated at La Tech fans. Every team in the Belt has done their best to make any improvements that they could. We have all been hoping for that move up. As far as USM and ECU, I think we've shown that we can hang with USM. ECU is nice with their attendance, and all of the bowl game Conf USA has...for now.

Ummm, La Tech's fans (some of them) have belittled our league, erroneously claimed that its better than our schools academically, behaved rather rudely to their neighbor and equal in ULM (not to mention ULL). I get you think you're better than us (well some of you at least) and you did get in CUSA after 12 years of trying. But no one here thinks you're better than MT and some of us understand that you're upset that some folks in your new conference (you got in, remember)liked someone else better. We like MT better (they're on of us naturally),
they've been a good member and we hope to see them continue with us.

If there was a huge difference between La Tech and the Sun Belt (I think I recall terms like "Belch" and "Slum Belt") athletically 12 years ago, that gap is gone now. Academically, there isnt any appreciable difference between the value of your degree and ours.

Im sure you can hang with ECU and USM. So can the Sun Belt. We're just as good as Louisiana Tech and Conference USA. Now we need to just prove it on the field which I can assure you we will do.

If you're in the minority of La Tech fans who dont think like Terry Bradshaw, this isnt meant for you.

MTFan
Congratulations dude you're in your dream conference with a bunch of 1AA teams and two of the Sun Belt's crappier programs. Now run a long and go play with them.


[/quote]

Well I am a fan of a crappy program. I would like to see the metrics that support your contention that FIU and NT are two of the crappier Belt programs. I assume that means that there are at least 6 Belt teams that you think are better on some basis. If it is all this obvious, please make your case. Couldn't be academics, so let go to sports. NT has had a bad run of football teams, but if that is your criteria how does FIU merit your rating? Overall sports championship, Middle is the king but if that it such a big deal how is NT crappy being they are almost a perennial third.

I am replying to you but I have seen some variation of this comment often on this board, and I suspect most of you realize how stupid it is. You can agrue that the Belt is as good as CUSA or better. The team you are a fan of deserved the invitation more than FIU or NT. However, to imply that NT or/and FIU have not been good Belt members and are bottom feeders in the Belt is just foolish. Any valid points that you may have are buried by the ignorance of such an evaluation.

(05-21-2012 06:13 PM)MG61 Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 05:18 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  It boggles the mind to see some folks scrambling to get an invite to the extremely weakened C-USA. If they hadn't lost the big dawg programs that jumped ship to the Big East then I'd understand. However, at this point, C-USA offers basically the same competition as the Belt but at twice the travel cost. Once they lose their TV and bowl packages, because of this fact, those of you drooling over that ugly little jersey patch will feel silly.

I honestly don't know how you can claim that travel cost wil double for schools moving from the Sun Belt to CUSA. The travel cost at UNT will actually go down. The TV and bowl package hasn't be lost yet. It will most certainly be revised, but you can't say what the end result will be at this time. The TV and bowl package will in all probability exceed the Sun Belt's. We should find out soon.

NT's costs will likely go down for travel. Who knows what CUSA will be able to get for their tv or the Belt for that matter. I'd be willing the difference, if any, in 2014 will be less than in 2012. CUSA is a better deal, at this time, for NT. I dont know if it is, or will remain, a better conference overall, but its a better deal for you guys.

(05-21-2012 08:36 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 07:23 PM)BlueRaiderFan. Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 01:59 PM)theATLDawg Wrote:  see thats just it. We do believe that. That is why we are where we are and you are not. Tech always believes in greater things and pushed for it. While you guys sat and biotched and moaned and criticizing us for thinking too big, we continued to believe and got everything we wanted.

See, this is why people get so irritated at La Tech fans. Every team in the Belt has done their best to make any improvements that they could. We have all been hoping for that move up. As far as USM and ECU, I think we've shown that we can hang with USM. ECU is nice with their attendance, and all of the bowl game Conf USA has...for now.

Ummm, La Tech's fans (some of them) have belittled our league, erroneously claimed that its better than our schools academically, behaved rather rudely to their neighbor and equal in ULM (not to mention ULL). I get you think you're better than us (well some of you at least) and you did get in CUSA after 12 years of trying. But no one here thinks you're better than MT and some of us understand that you're upset that some folks in your new conference (you got in, remember)liked someone else better. We like MT better (they're on of us naturally),
they've been a good member and we hope to see them continue with us.

If there was a huge difference between La Tech and the Sun Belt (I think I recall terms like "Belch" and "Slum Belt") athletically 12 years ago, that gap is gone now. Academically, there isnt any appreciable difference between the value of your degree and ours.

Im sure you can hang with ECU and USM. So can the Sun Belt. We're just as good as Louisiana Tech and Conference USA. Now we need to just prove it on the field which I can assure you we will do.

If you're in the minority of La Tech fans who dont think like Terry Bradshaw, this isnt meant for you.

You need to visit the 2 campuses. How ULM is still FBS is beyond me.

(05-21-2012 06:47 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  This is what Britton Banowsky said on the day Tech was invited. (I don't have any info of why MT was not invited).

- CUSA had a plan. Looking for excellent, growing, dynamic activity and Tech was a no-brainer.
- Looking at competitive success and potential for success in the future. Tech's coaches are very well-respected nationally.
- They wanted it to make sense geographically for the fans and student-athletes (travel to games and get back) and La Tech is smack dab in the middle of our footprint.
- But above all that they wanted to be associated with great people. People they could trust and who shared the CUSA vision. Tech has great leadership.

I don't think Tech and MT were competing for a spot. Tech's competition was UNT and UTSA and all 3 were added. I think MT was competing with FIU, Charlotte and ODU and came up a bit short for one of the reasons above.

This is the biggest bunch of crap I've ever heard.....if you really think this you are nuts...CUSA basically said you are the equivalent of 2 SBC teams and 2 FCS teams (1 with no football team). You better hope USM, ECU, and Tulsa don't leave or you basically joined another SBC.

You more than likely had 1 or more CUSA Presidents (Tulane, USM) pulling strings and that was all you needed to swing the vote. It's also obvious ECU pulled a lot of weight for closer rivals.

The rest of your statement is carries about as much weight as the LT budget....

(05-21-2012 09:57 PM)CrushMI Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 06:47 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  This is what Britton Banowsky said on the day Tech was invited. (I don't have any info of why MT was not invited).

- CUSA had a plan. Looking for excellent, growing, dynamic activity and Tech was a no-brainer.
- Looking at competitive success and potential for success in the future. Tech's coaches are very well-respected nationally.
- They wanted it to make sense geographically for the fans and student-athletes (travel to games and get back) and La Tech is smack dab in the middle of our footprint.
- But above all that they wanted to be associated with great people. People they could trust and who shared the CUSA vision. Tech has great leadership.

I don't think Tech and MT were competing for a spot. Tech's competition was UNT and UTSA and all 3 were added. I think MT was competing with FIU, Charlotte and ODU and came up a bit short for one of the reasons above.

This is the biggest bunch of crap I've ever heard.....if you really think this you are nuts...CUSA basically said you are the equivalent of 2 SBC teams and 2 FCS teams (1 with no football team). You better hope USM, ECU, and Tulsa don't leave or you basically joined another SBC.

You more than likely had 1 or more CUSA Presidents (Tulane, USM) pulling strings and that was all you needed to swing the vote. It's also obvious ECU pulled a lot of weight for closer rivals.

The rest of your statement is carries about as much weight as the LT budget....

I was just letting the MTSU fans know what the man said to maybe shed some light on what they were looking for. You can watch it yourself if you don't trust what I said.

It starts at the 24:45 mark of the "Louisiana Tech Press Conference" archive from 05/04/12: http://www.latechsports.com/allaccess/

(05-21-2012 10:19 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 09:57 PM)CrushMI Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 06:47 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  This is what Britton Banowsky said on the day Tech was invited. (I don't have any info of why MT was not invited).

- CUSA had a plan. Looking for excellent, growing, dynamic activity and Tech was a no-brainer.
- Looking at competitive success and potential for success in the future. Tech's coaches are very well-respected nationally.
- They wanted it to make sense geographically for the fans and student-athletes (travel to games and get back) and La Tech is smack dab in the middle of our footprint.
- But above all that they wanted to be associated with great people. People they could trust and who shared the CUSA vision. Tech has great leadership.

I don't think Tech and MT were competing for a spot. Tech's competition was UNT and UTSA and all 3 were added. I think MT was competing with FIU, Charlotte and ODU and came up a bit short for one of the reasons above.

This is the biggest bunch of crap I've ever heard.....if you really think this you are nuts...CUSA basically said you are the equivalent of 2 SBC teams and 2 FCS teams (1 with no football team). You better hope USM, ECU, and Tulsa don't leave or you basically joined another SBC.

You more than likely had 1 or more CUSA Presidents (Tulane, USM) pulling strings and that was all you needed to swing the vote. It's also obvious ECU pulled a lot of weight for closer rivals.

The rest of your statement is carries about as much weight as the LT budget....

I was just letting the MTSU fans know what the man said to maybe shed some light on what they were looking for. You can watch it yourself if you don't trust what I said.

It starts at the 24:45 mark of the "Louisiana Tech Press Conference" archive from 05/04/12: http://www.latechsports.com/allaccess/

Is this the La Tech AD talking?

(05-21-2012 05:18 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  It boggles the mind to see some folks scrambling to get an invite to the extremely weakened C-USA. If they hadn't lost the big dawg programs that jumped ship to the Big East then I'd understand. However, at this point, C-USA offers basically the same competition as the Belt but at twice the travel cost. Once they lose their TV and bowl packages, because of this fact, those of you drooling over that ugly little jersey patch will feel silly.

What big dog programs

SMU- Horrid basketball that BE basketball schools dread...They have seen the 800 people that go to games...Football has become decent but not great.

Houston- They haven't had an RPI under 175 since the new CUSA started. And haven't had a decent program since 1998. Their football has been the Kevin Kolb and Case Keenum show. The year Keenum went down they were 5-7 and only won 3 games by 8 points without him.

UCF- Decent football and basketball. The only thing is the coach they have isn't a very good floor coach. He has never won a game in the CUSA tourny. How do I know I watched him at Marshall for 3 years. The man can sell ice in hell but can't coach worth a lick.

Memphis- Their football is a joke of IA and has been the worst IA program the last 4 years. Their basketball has been dominat but how did they get that way. They cheated under Cal, the fire started getting hot and he left.

The only thing CUSA loses is Memphis basketball that ESPN likes to slobber over.

Where are bowls going to go, to the Sun Belt, the WAC, the mythical new eastern FBS conference. I remember Louisville, Cincy and USF posters saying that we would never have a better TV deal than they had then. At the time their TV deal was 8.5 million from ESPN. How'd that turn out.

The only bowl CUSA will lose is the Liberty bowl. But we have a better than avg chance of picking up the Indy bowl and a bowl in Charlotte.

Frankly I don't care if what I said irritated you. It was a response to a MT fan who made disparaging comments about La Tech. MT did not have more going for it then La TECH. I never cut down the belt. There are some fine schools in the Belt. ULL is one of them. I just said that we dared to dream bigger against all of your telling us to know our place and we proved you wrong. ULM is the only school in the Belt that has no business being FBS. A FAU fan said he was happy for us that we wouldn't have had to come back to the belt with our tail between our legs. I for one would have been ok coming back but was glad we got into CUSA. Tech fans get bashed here everyday and some of you get irritated that we diplomatically defend ourselves.

(05-21-2012 11:09 PM)BlueRaiderFan. Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 10:19 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 09:57 PM)CrushMI Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 06:47 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  This is what Britton Banowsky said on the day Tech was invited. (I don't have any info of why MT was not invited).

- CUSA had a plan. Looking for excellent, growing, dynamic activity and Tech was a no-brainer.
- Looking at competitive success and potential for success in the future. Tech's coaches are very well-respected nationally.
- They wanted it to make sense geographically for the fans and student-athletes (travel to games and get back) and La Tech is smack dab in the middle of our footprint.
- But above all that they wanted to be associated with great people. People they could trust and who shared the CUSA vision. Tech has great leadership.

I don't think Tech and MT were competing for a spot. Tech's competition was UNT and UTSA and all 3 were added. I think MT was competing with FIU, Charlotte and ODU and came up a bit short for one of the reasons above.

This is the biggest bunch of crap I've ever heard.....if you really think this you are nuts...CUSA basically said you are the equivalent of 2 SBC teams and 2 FCS teams (1 with no football team). You better hope USM, ECU, and Tulsa don't leave or you basically joined another SBC.

You more than likely had 1 or more CUSA Presidents (Tulane, USM) pulling strings and that was all you needed to swing the vote. It's also obvious ECU pulled a lot of weight for closer rivals.

The rest of your statement is carries about as much weight as the LT budget....

I was just letting the MTSU fans know what the man said to maybe shed some light on what they were looking for. You can watch it yourself if you don't trust what I said.

It starts at the 24:45 mark of the "Louisiana Tech Press Conference" archive from 05/04/12: http://www.latechsports.com/allaccess/

Is this the La Tech AD talking?

CUSA commissioner.

If I had to make an uneducated guess of why MTSU was not chosen (and it's really impossible to tell because who knows what goes through these people's minds), I would say it's because they are in a state with Tennessee, Vanderbilt, and Memphis. Will they ever be better than 4th fiddle in the state?

From what I've seen, MT is as relevant as Vandy and Memphis in football, except for the rare year that Vanderbilt makes a bowl game. If you are including overall athletics, then Memphis would get the edge due to basketball. We will never be as supported as Tennessee is in the state but, in terms of attendance and even TV coverage, we are about the same as Vandy and Memphis and in terms of fan support. Vandy does have higher attendance, but I've been to and watched those games on TV. Vanderbilts attendance numbers are due to visiting SEC teams. About half of their attendance is their fans.

(05-22-2012 06:23 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 11:09 PM)BlueRaiderFan. Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 10:19 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 09:57 PM)CrushMI Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 06:47 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  This is what Britton Banowsky said on the day Tech was invited. (I don't have any info of why MT was not invited).

- CUSA had a plan. Looking for excellent, growing, dynamic activity and Tech was a no-brainer.
- Looking at competitive success and potential for success in the future. Tech's coaches are very well-respected nationally.
- They wanted it to make sense geographically for the fans and student-athletes (travel to games and get back) and La Tech is smack dab in the middle of our footprint.
- But above all that they wanted to be associated with great people. People they could trust and who shared the CUSA vision. Tech has great leadership.

I don't think Tech and MT were competing for a spot. Tech's competition was UNT and UTSA and all 3 were added. I think MT was competing with FIU, Charlotte and ODU and came up a bit short for one of the reasons above.

This is the biggest bunch of crap I've ever heard.....if you really think this you are nuts...CUSA basically said you are the equivalent of 2 SBC teams and 2 FCS teams (1 with no football team). You better hope USM, ECU, and Tulsa don't leave or you basically joined another SBC.

You more than likely had 1 or more CUSA Presidents (Tulane, USM) pulling strings and that was all you needed to swing the vote. It's also obvious ECU pulled a lot of weight for closer rivals.

The rest of your statement is carries about as much weight as the LT budget....

I was just letting the MTSU fans know what the man said to maybe shed some light on what they were looking for. You can watch it yourself if you don't trust what I said.

It starts at the 24:45 mark of the "Louisiana Tech Press Conference" archive from 05/04/12: http://www.latechsports.com/allaccess/

Is this the La Tech AD talking?

CUSA commissioner.

If I had to make an uneducated guess of why MTSU was not chosen (and it's really impossible to tell because who knows what goes through these people's minds), I would say it's because they are in a state with Tennessee, Vanderbilt, and Memphis. Will they ever be better than 4th fiddle in the state?

In the Sun Belt the answer to your question is no. In C-USA it was maybe.

We're now the only I-A team in the state of Tennessee that's not in an AQ conference. I know that's going away, but when you look at where everyone is no we're going to remain 4th fiddle, because we are not going to be able keep up financially.

Just as a little factoid. Last year's payout to C-USA was about $3 million per school (I haven't seen the 2011-12 numbers yet). By contrast we only received $300K from the Sun Belt. Vandy gets about a $20 million welfare check from the SEC. How are we supposed to keep up?? If anyone has any ideas let me know and I'll be happy to pass them to our adminstration. The reality is we are F'd. We have a budget that's shooting up like a rocket and no financial benefit from our conference. We wanted out of the Sun Belt not because we don't like our conference mates - all of whom are really cool folks - it's because we're getting smoked financially and we can't afford to keep doing what we're doing....at least not here.

(05-22-2012 06:23 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 11:09 PM)BlueRaiderFan. Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 10:19 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 09:57 PM)CrushMI Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 06:47 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  This is what Britton Banowsky said on the day Tech was invited. (I don't have any info of why MT was not invited).

- CUSA had a plan. Looking for excellent, growing, dynamic activity and Tech was a no-brainer.
- Looking at competitive success and potential for success in the future. Tech's coaches are very well-respected nationally.
- They wanted it to make sense geographically for the fans and student-athletes (travel to games and get back) and La Tech is smack dab in the middle of our footprint.
- But above all that they wanted to be associated with great people. People they could trust and who shared the CUSA vision. Tech has great leadership.

I don't think Tech and MT were competing for a spot. Tech's competition was UNT and UTSA and all 3 were added. I think MT was competing with FIU, Charlotte and ODU and came up a bit short for one of the reasons above.

This is the biggest bunch of crap I've ever heard.....if you really think this you are nuts...CUSA basically said you are the equivalent of 2 SBC teams and 2 FCS teams (1 with no football team). You better hope USM, ECU, and Tulsa don't leave or you basically joined another SBC.

You more than likely had 1 or more CUSA Presidents (Tulane, USM) pulling strings and that was all you needed to swing the vote. It's also obvious ECU pulled a lot of weight for closer rivals.

The rest of your statement is carries about as much weight as the LT budget....

I was just letting the MTSU fans know what the man said to maybe shed some light on what they were looking for. You can watch it yourself if you don't trust what I said.

It starts at the 24:45 mark of the "Louisiana Tech Press Conference" archive from 05/04/12: http://www.latechsports.com/allaccess/

Is this the La Tech AD talking?

CUSA commissioner.

If I had to make an uneducated guess of why MTSU was not chosen (and it's really impossible to tell because who knows what goes through these people's minds), I would say it's because they are in a state with Tennessee, Vanderbilt, and Memphis. Will they ever be better than 4th fiddle in the state?

La Tech currently plays "4th fiddle" behind LSU, UL and Tulane. I don't think that is the reason we were not chosen. It is probably the half ass effort of our administration. I think that is why many of our fans are upset about not getting invited. It's not so much that we are not in CUSA (most the good teams left long ago Louisville, Cincinati and South Flordia) it's more the fact that we were not invited when we should have been an obvious top choice.

The irony to all of this is we've beaten Vandy three straight times and Memphis two out of the last three in football. Over the last decade, Middle Tennessee has been better in football than both of them.

But as that financial gap continues to widen I don't think we'll be able to continue doing that.

(05-21-2012 08:39 PM)Grandgreen Wrote:  MTFan
Congratulations dude you're in your dream conference with a bunch of 1AA teams and two of the Sun Belt's crappier programs. Now run a long and go play with them.

Well I am a fan of a crappy program. I would like to see the metrics that support your contention that FIU and NT are two of the crappier Belt programs. I assume that means that there are at least 6 Belt teams that you think are better on some basis. If it is all this obvious, please make your case. Couldn't be academics, so let go to sports. NT has had a bad run of football teams, but if that is your criteria how does FIU merit your rating? Overall sports championship, Middle is the king but if that it such a big deal how is NT crappy being they are almost a perennial third.

I am replying to you but I have seen some variation of this comment often on this board, and I suspect most of you realize how stupid it is. You can agrue that the Belt is as good as CUSA or better. The team you are a fan of deserved the invitation more than FIU or NT. However, to imply that NT or/and FIU have not been good Belt members and are bottom feeders in the Belt is just foolish. Any valid points that you may have are buried by the ignorance of such an evaluation.
[/quote]

I based my merit on recent football success, attendance and national perception.

(05-21-2012 05:18 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  It boggles the mind to see some folks scrambling to get an invite to the extremely weakened C-USA. If they hadn't lost the big dawg programs that jumped ship to the Big East then I'd understand. However, at this point, C-USA offers basically the same competition as the Belt but at twice the travel cost. Once they lose their TV and bowl packages, because of this fact, those of you drooling over that ugly little jersey patch will feel silly.

I've no desire to be with any of the teams in CUSA except ECU/USM.

That conference is a shadow of itself competitively. Outside of USM and ECU, the gap between the conferences on the field is negligible.

That said, as of right now, they still have more bowls and get more $$$$'s than we do. And until we close that gap, CUSA will remain more attractive.

The SBC has a chance to do some big things here - adding the right programs, getting to 12, etc.

Instead, the SBC has added GaState (IMHO, the jury is out on whether or not they'll prove a real program or one of those "market" additions) and UTA (who?) and is now sitting back, patting itself on the back.

It's not the way to keep programs that might have options down the road from being interested in them.

(05-22-2012 07:33 AM)MT FAN Wrote:  

(05-22-2012 06:23 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 11:09 PM)BlueRaiderFan. Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 10:19 PM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(05-21-2012 09:57 PM)CrushMI Wrote:  This is the biggest bunch of crap I've ever heard.....if you really think this you are nuts...CUSA basically said you are the equivalent of 2 SBC teams and 2 FCS teams (1 with no football team). You better hope USM, ECU, and Tulsa don't leave or you basically joined another SBC.

You more than likely had 1 or more CUSA Presidents (Tulane, USM) pulling strings and that was all you needed to swing the vote. It's also obvious ECU pulled a lot of weight for closer rivals.

The rest of your statement is carries about as much weight as the LT budget....

I was just letting the MTSU fans know what the man said to maybe shed some light on what they were looking for. You can watch it yourself if you don't trust what I said.

It starts at the 24:45 mark of the "Louisiana Tech Press Conference" archive from 05/04/12: http://www.latechsports.com/allaccess/

Is this the La Tech AD talking?

CUSA commissioner.

If I had to make an uneducated guess of why MTSU was not chosen (and it's really impossible to tell because who knows what goes through these people's minds), I would say it's because they are in a state with Tennessee, Vanderbilt, and Memphis. Will they ever be better than 4th fiddle in the state?

La Tech currently plays "4th fiddle" behind LSU, UL and Tulane. I don't think that is the reason we were not chosen. It is probably the half ass effort of our administration. I think that is why many of our fans are upset about not getting invited. It's not so much that we are not in CUSA (most the good teams left long ago Louisville, Cincinati and South Flordia) it's more the fact that we were not invited when we should have been an obvious top choice.

I don't think it's the same with Tech and MTSU. If ULL were in the SEC with LSU, and Tulane was in the Big 12 then it would be the same.

I don't think it was lack of effort on MTSU's part either. ODU got a visit about the same time MTSU did and they really impressed CUSA. I bet it was a really tough decision between Charlotte, MTSU, and ODU and Charlotte and ODU had ECU pushing for them due to geography, which put them over the top.

MTSU is where Tech was 7 years ago... the unoffical 15th member of CUSA waiting for a spot to open. There will be another opening and MTSU needs to start lobbying CUSA hard from here on out and show them you really want in (and hope Ga State doesn't pass you by).