(02-24-2013 07:35 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 01:51 PM)egrizzard Wrote:  Who would be next if you lost someone?

Memphis, Cincy, and USF in no particular order.

If you could get all three you'd be on to something.

Banowsky made this very clear on a recent trip to Middle Tennessee. He said that the decisions were based on growing universities in large, emerging media markets (not just large MM...markets that are far from capping growth) in the southeast and southwest.

The only school that didn't fit this in recent expansion was La Tech, but obviously they bring enough that it's a school C-USA wasn't going to let the SBC or MWC have. To me the emerging MM issue is the single most important reason why UTSA and ODU were elevated.

If you look at this criteria going forward, Georgia State, Texas State, and South Alabama in no particular order fit this model.

(02-24-2013 08:06 PM)egrizzard Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 06:08 PM)UABGrad Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 04:09 PM)backrow Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 03:29 PM)UABGrad Wrote:  About your new conference. Is Navy staying? Who is the 12th? I read some posters saying UMass.

I thought this was about CUSA and not nbe.

just being cordial to our guest.

Thanks.

I have read Navy is waffling. Not sure what will go down. I just asked about CUSA because I was curious. I watched GA Southern in the playoffs. Very good team. I also remember the announcers saying that GA Southen was trying to get in the Sunblet or CUSA.

If Navy does back out maybe you guys can snag UMass and Ga Southern.

(02-24-2013 08:14 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Banowsky made this very clear on a recent trip to Middle Tennessee. He said that the decisions were based on growing universities in large, emerging media markets (not just large MM...markets that are far from capping growth) in the southeast and southwest.

The only school that didn't fit this in recent expansion was La Tech, but obviously they bring enough that it's a school C-USA wasn't going to let the SBC or MWC have. To me the emerging MM issue is the single most important reason why UTSA and ODU were elevated.

If you look at this criteria going forward, Georgia State, Texas State, and South Alabama in no particular order fit this model.

GSU has almost no fan base.

I hope USM's administration will veto anything that might help USA even indirectly. It really stinks that they are trying to have football.

(02-25-2013 01:33 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 08:14 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Banowsky made this very clear on a recent trip to Middle Tennessee. He said that the decisions were based on growing universities in large, emerging media markets (not just large MM...markets that are far from capping growth) in the southeast and southwest.

The only school that didn't fit this in recent expansion was La Tech, but obviously they bring enough that it's a school C-USA wasn't going to let the SBC or MWC have. To me the emerging MM issue is the single most important reason why UTSA and ODU were elevated.

If you look at this criteria going forward, Georgia State, Texas State, and South Alabama in no particular order fit this model.

GSU has almost no fan base.

I hope USM's administration will veto anything that might help USA even indirectly. It really stinks that they are trying to have football.

Huh? Stinks who is trying to have football?

(02-25-2013 01:33 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  I hope USM's administration will veto anything that might help USA even indirectly. It really stinks that they are trying to have football.

You see USA as infringing on your market. Others see USA as a regional opponent to add in a nice town at a similar school to many C-USA schools. This is the cultural clash in C-USA: to some, regional opponents re market infringers; to others, it is competition with low travel costs and perhaps enhanced fan interest.

(02-25-2013 01:49 PM)egrizzard Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 01:33 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 08:14 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Banowsky made this very clear on a recent trip to Middle Tennessee. He said that the decisions were based on growing universities in large, emerging media markets (not just large MM...markets that are far from capping growth) in the southeast and southwest.

The only school that didn't fit this in recent expansion was La Tech, but obviously they bring enough that it's a school C-USA wasn't going to let the SBC or MWC have. To me the emerging MM issue is the single most important reason why UTSA and ODU were elevated.

If you look at this criteria going forward, Georgia State, Texas State, and South Alabama in no particular order fit this model.

GSU has almost no fan base.

I hope USM's administration will veto anything that might help USA even indirectly. It really stinks that they are trying to have football.

Huh? Stinks who is trying to have football?

that's illegal in mississippi.

(02-25-2013 02:03 PM)EdisonDoyle Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 01:33 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  I hope USM's administration will veto anything that might help USA even indirectly. It really stinks that they are trying to have football.

You see USA as infringing on your market. Others see USA as a regional opponent to add in a nice town at a similar school to many C-USA schools. This is the cultural clash in C-USA: to some, regional opponents re market infringers; to others, it is competition with low travel costs and perhaps enhanced fan interest.

I agree, but I doubt there's much interest in USA as a rival for USM, even among the least ambitious members of our fan base. You don't go from having Louisville, ECU, and Tulane as rivals to having USA as your rival with any enthusiasm.

USA is not like USM anyway. They are a 1960s-era commuter school playing in a municipal stadium, and they went FBS after 2000. They are a rival for UTSA, GA State, etc. USM has a lot more in common with Auburn or UA(T).

(02-25-2013 02:21 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 02:03 PM)EdisonDoyle Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 01:33 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  I hope USM's administration will veto anything that might help USA even indirectly. It really stinks that they are trying to have football.

You see USA as infringing on your market. Others see USA as a regional opponent to add in a nice town at a similar school to many C-USA schools. This is the cultural clash in C-USA: to some, regional opponents re market infringers; to others, it is competition with low travel costs and perhaps enhanced fan interest.

I agree, but I doubt there's much interest in USA as a rival for USM, even among the least ambitious members of our fan base. You don't go from having Louisville, ECU, and Tulane as rivals to having USA as your rival with any enthusiasm.

USA is not like USM anyway. They are a 1960s-era commuter school playing in a municipal stadium, and they went FBS after 2000. They are a rival for UTSA, GA State, etc. USM has a lot more in common with Auburn or UA(T).

What would UNT, UTEP and UTSA feel about Texas State as an expansion possibility? Just curious.

(02-25-2013 01:49 PM)egrizzard Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 01:33 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 08:14 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Banowsky made this very clear on a recent trip to Middle Tennessee. He said that the decisions were based on growing universities in large, emerging media markets (not just large MM...markets that are far from capping growth) in the southeast and southwest.

The only school that didn't fit this in recent expansion was La Tech, but obviously they bring enough that it's a school C-USA wasn't going to let the SBC or MWC have. To me the emerging MM issue is the single most important reason why UTSA and ODU were elevated.

If you look at this criteria going forward, Georgia State, Texas State, and South Alabama in no particular order fit this model.

GSU has almost no fan base.

I hope USM's administration will veto anything that might help USA even indirectly. It really stinks that they are trying to have football.

Huh? Stinks who is trying to have football?

USA. Mobile and the FL panhandle used to be pretty strong for USM. USA had carved out a niche in the original SBC as a pretty OK basketball school. We were coexisting well, I thought. Then, USA watched us make noise in CFB in the late 1990s and (along with much of the SBC) caught a bad case of institutional jealousy.

They'll never get to where we were, but they do seem to be succeeding in drawing USM down to their own (shockingly mediocre) leveln

(02-25-2013 02:04 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 01:49 PM)egrizzard Wrote:  

(02-25-2013 01:33 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 08:14 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  Banowsky made this very clear on a recent trip to Middle Tennessee. He said that the decisions were based on growing universities in large, emerging media markets (not just large MM...markets that are far from capping growth) in the southeast and southwest.

The only school that didn't fit this in recent expansion was La Tech, but obviously they bring enough that it's a school C-USA wasn't going to let the SBC or MWC have. To me the emerging MM issue is the single most important reason why UTSA and ODU were elevated.

If you look at this criteria going forward, Georgia State, Texas State, and South Alabama in no particular order fit this model.

GSU has almost no fan base.

I hope USM's administration will veto anything that might help USA even indirectly. It really stinks that they are trying to have football.

Huh? Stinks who is trying to have football?

that's illegal in mississippi.

Hilarious

(02-24-2013 02:15 PM)Matrix Wrote:  

(02-24-2013 01:51 PM)egrizzard Wrote:  I didn't follow how it went down and the ins and outs of the invitations.
Nothing wrong with the schools that were added. They all brig something to the party. [/b] I concur with that

Were any other schools discussed? Particularly Georgia Southern? Georgia State? [/b][i] I think Ga. Southern's name came up, mainly because of their football program, but that's as far as it went.[/b][i]

Do you think it was based on markets?Yes. Program size?Perhaps. Success? More or less, on their potential and the "freshness" of most if not each of the programs in general.[b]


Just curious y'all's take. Who would be next if you lost someone? Western Kentucky, Middle Tennessee State (who I think is coming, anyway), perhaps Arkansas State or "La-La"...I personally would like to have Troy or South Alabama join C-USA, but many of my fellow Blazer Brethren doth object to that.[/i]

I object to Troy my choice is WKUand Ark St.