(03-12-2013 05:49 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 05:34 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 05:25 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 05:13 PM)nastybunch Wrote:  USM is NOT interested in moving laterally and paying money to do so. And I agree with this.

It's not lateral. I doubt CUSA will have a single bowl tie-in against an AQ opponent after next year. Even the New Orleans Bowl is too good for CUSA. Is this the kind of conference you want to be associated with? Have some pride, man. You act like you have to come up with the money personally, or like we get points for balancing a budget.

The category you people try to put USM in just kills me. No accusations here, but I wonder if you even went to school at USM.

Seriously, FBS was full when LA Tech moved up. Why are we even participating in this charade? These are not major college teams. They need us waaay more than we need them.

So? ....like you really think that the nation cares about the ones the n?e will get? After this year, they will be basically 3/4 of OUR current membership....and you aren't even factoring how the ACC plays into this....this, to me is what Gh is really doing with the consulting firm....

today is short sided bro....fk it....tomorrow is what we need....GH is making it happen and you guys aren't even seeing it....sorry if that came off as being an ass....it is the way it is boys.....

You don't sound like an ass, you're just being optimistic.

I despise bowls against non-AQ teams. How is it a bowl if you're not playing a name opponent? WTF does it prove to have a great season and then beat ECU in the New O.... whoops, I mean "beat SJSU in the Hearts of Palm Bowl"? It just cheapens the whole thing. I'd rather play a 6-5 Vandy team or just stay home.

Anytime our score scrolls by on ESPN and UM / MSU fans have to ask"USM versus who?" we lose. We lose credibility, and money, and fans.

I do too...is why I was so pissed that we played Nevada in '11 when we could have played PSU. Your bolded statement explains why the n?e and all lower tier TV payouts are so low. You nailed it!

Since '04 we have played 2 AQs in bowl games...so it's not like the teams we currently have in our conference have made a difference, nor will the same teams make a difference tomorrow. Why would that change?

I guess what I am trying to say is that regardless of how the whole realignment thing plays out, the lower tier group isn't going to have much of an option moving forward anyway.

IMO, the consulting firm is being hired to figure out what will happen two years (or less) down the road. I believe GH is trying to gather data that will allow him to make educated decisions for future considerations to obtain the highest achievable level.

We all know what is going to happen...it is the players that are yet to be determined. He wants what we all want....to give USM the best opportunity in the end.

USM does not want in the NBE.

(03-12-2013 06:34 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  We'll know if it is a lateral move in three years.

Agree. It will be who beats the AQ teams on their schedule and who finishes the best among the non-AQ.

In 2012, not many of the teams in the A-12 or C-USA3.0 won against their AQ opponents. I may have missed some:

Rice beat Kansas
Louisiana Tech beat Illinois and Virginia
Tulsa beat Iowa State
Cincinnati beat Pittsburgh, Virginia Tech, Miami, Syracuse and Duke
Connecticut beat Maryland, Pittsburgh, and Louisville
Navy beat Indiana

Outside of Cincinnati and Connecticut, there is not a lot to shout about.

Well, it would relieve Tulsa of the "Dumbest Rock in the Quarry" title if it came to pass (assuming, of course, that Tulsa actually grabs said title to begin with).

If Banowsky not rushed inviting every school he could, & selling the Presidents a bill of goods regarding more TV monies, C-USA would have been better off. What little money is now shared by how many schools now?
Not saying some would have not been invited, but why so soon, & why so many?
You did not see Thompson & the MWC backfill quickly & they're looking good.
Banowsky's was perhaps the worst commissioner this conference could have picked in the expansion era.

(03-13-2013 08:52 AM)AtlantaEagle Wrote:  If Banowsky not rushed inviting every school he could, & selling the Presidents a bill of goods regarding more TV monies, C-USA would have been better off. What little money is now shared by how many schools now?
Not saying some would have not been invited, but why so soon, & why so many?
You did not see Thompson & the MWC backfill quickly & they're looking good.
Banowsky's was perhaps the worst commissioner this conference could have picked in the expansion era.

As of now, we are nothing more than a bingo ball in the cage. So are the rest. Not arguing with you...just don't think it matters.

(03-13-2013 08:52 AM)AtlantaEagle Wrote:  If Banowsky not rushed inviting every school he could, & selling the Presidents a bill of goods regarding more TV monies, C-USA would have been better off. What little money is now shared by how many schools now?
Not saying some would have not been invited, but why so soon, & why so many?
You did not see Thompson & the MWC backfill quickly & they're looking good.
Banowsky's was perhaps the worst commissioner this conference could have picked in the expansion era.

---------------------
Banowsky has known how this was coming down for a long time. He knew that either the Sunbelt or Cusa would be gobbled up leaving only one and he just became proactive and brought the Sunbelt over resulting in enough votes to insure his job as commissioner. It isnt over yet, Cusa is now the Cbelt and will change in that direction even more just as soon as things are squared away with Tulsa, USM, and Utep, and maybe UAB. You can expect a Cbelt of up to 16-18 teams when the dust has settled and the others are in.

UCF doesn't want USM there is more like it.

(03-12-2013 07:13 PM)Freshy Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 06:20 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 05:58 PM)nastybunch Wrote:  It is absolitely a lateral move, actually would be down in basketball once UConn leaves

So UNT has a Heisman, like UH? FIU has a 40,000 seat stadium like UCF? ODU has finished ranked in the top ten football, like ECU? Does LA Tech have as many Sugar Bowls as Tulane? How about their academics? SMU has "Pony Express": Dickerson, Craig James, all those Cotton Bowls... and UTSA has... enthusiasm? Memphis was in the hoops final a few years ago... so was MTSU at least in the Elite 8?

I wish we didn't have to go over this repeatedly. I'm willing to make the best of a bad situation. As far as FCS schools with high hopes go, we've picked some good ones. But you need to get real. This ain't "lateral"... not even close.

You do realize that very few of these things actually happened in CUSA, right? I mean, when you take that into consideration, your internet talk is just as empty as everyone else's is.

If we're going to pre-CUSA past, Rice has a 70k stadium, has finished top ten in the country in attendance, one sweet 16 and two elite eight appearances, a Sugar Bowl appearance, an Orange Bowl win, and four Cotton Bowl appearances (three wins). And a national championship in baseball. (Which even occurred this century.)

Hopefully that has cheered Andre up.

(03-13-2013 09:05 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  ---------------------
Banowsky has known how this was coming down for a long time. He knew that either the Sunbelt or Cusa would be gobbled up leaving only one and he just became proactive and brought the Sunbelt over resulting in enough votes to insure his job as commissioner. It isnt over yet, Cusa is now the Cbelt and will change in that direction even more just as soon as things are squared away with Tulsa, USM, and Utep, and maybe UAB. You can expect a Cbelt of up to 16-18 teams when the dust has settled and the others are in.

You may be very well correct. I've always stated Banowsky looks after himself first, & the conference secondary.
May not have mattered, but too bad a lot of this went down, while USM had an interim President & noob AD on a short lease.

(03-13-2013 09:42 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  If we're going to pre-CUSA past, Rice has a 70k stadium, has finished top ten in the country in attendance, one sweet 16 and two elite eight appearances, a Sugar Bowl appearance, an Orange Bowl win, and four Cotton Bowl appearances (three wins). And a national championship in baseball. (Which even occurred this century.)
Hopefully that has cheered Andre up.

Rice has perhaps, the biggest reason to complain than anyone in the NCAAs regarding expansion.
Rich history, tradition, location, & could buy out any school in most conferences. Some schools 3-4 times.
They're great conference mates.
Restart the SWC anyone?

(03-12-2013 05:09 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  The reasoning behind UMass in a phrase:

"Rome wasn't built in a day'"

Kruciff.. i'm a bit confused by your post, so I'm hoping you can clear it up where you're going.

First and foremost, a lot of us in C-USA were in favor of ODU and UNCC (and to a lesser extent UTSA), because they had "Potential" of being great schools if they put some effort behind it and were regional 'partners' to existing schools (UNT and the U_F's have a lot more work to do).

We (the fans) have taken shellacing after shellacing from nBE/A12/GAC fans, because they weren't "Immediate" powers. Yet, it sounds like you're okay with a fledgling small school now, because it fits for Temple? (Not saying you're right or wrong, I'm just trying to figure the change in opinion)

Quote:Tulsa, SMU, Houston, and Tulane shore up the Southwest. Cinci and Memphis are the Mid-America, ECU + Navy make up the East Coast, UCF + USF make up an island of sorts in Florida. The only real options in the North-East to aid UConn and Temple in travel are UMass and... well Army, but they aren't interested.

What about the deep south itself? I mean it's also a hotbed, and USM would be good in that regards. (Yes, they have added the Florida/east coast reach). So to USM is basically saying, "we don't care about the deep south potential, as much as we have to get a NE buddy for Temple.)

Quote:This is also reasoning for ODU and UNCC. Sure they aren't strong now, and maybe they will never be strong, but the backbone of the conference is set, and we need to garner regional interest in the conference.

UMass, Tulsa, ODU, UNCC all expand upon existing geographies without saturating them.

Now this is where I'm confused.. are you saying the nBE needs to look at ODU/UNCC for future issues? Again, why are they "good enough" for nBE consideration, but if they're in C-USA they're just "FBS elevated teams"?

Quote:

The detractions of USM:
• Location (both in Hattiesburg, and 60 miles away from an already established location without bringing anything else [market wise / substantial interest ala Boise State] to the table).
• The status of your athletic department (bankrupt)
  

Again, see the above about Deep South vs. New England/NE US.

Quote:These detractions are short, but they are large. Athletic prowess is fickle; athletic investment is not. No one doubts your achievements on the field (though one could argue that you have peaked)

And we peaked in the 70's.. and in the 80's.. and in the 90's.. and the 00's... and now we peaked the 10's?

Quote:It is also my opinion that no fledgling school should be invited without contractual obligations to invest in football. That means UMass would have to build an OCS or at least get a closer stadium. UNCC and ODU already are doing that (I hear good things about ODU's season ticket percentages). The truth of the matter is, any one of these teams can reach the attendance and season ticket values of USM, Tulsa, Tulane, UAB, Rice, etc. in a matter of 5 years. If you are looking for proof, just ask UConn.

Again, ODU/UNCC are "upstart FBS' Programs when they're invited to C-USA.. but hey, they're going to stabilize the nBE?

(03-12-2013 05:25 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  It's not lateral. I doubt CUSA will have a single bowl tie-in against an AQ opponent after next year.

Again, how is a move from one Go5 to another Go5 conference a Non-Lateral move? I mean right now there's no guarantee that ANY Go5 school with have a bowl-tie in with the "Tyranny" Conferences.

Stinkfist Wrote:If Banowsky not rushed inviting every school he could, & selling the Presidents a bill of goods regarding more TV monies, C-USA would have been better off. What little money is now shared by how many schools now?

Again, we had to fill quickly.. he HAD to replace the markets that jumped, and had to make sure C-USA had enough for a CCG. You could argue that he might have overfilled.. but rushed invites? Nope...

(03-13-2013 09:57 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 05:09 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  The reasoning behind UMass in a phrase:

"Rome wasn't built in a day'"

Kruciff.. i'm a bit confused by your post, so I'm hoping you can clear it up where you're going.

First and foremost, a lot of us in C-USA were in favor of ODU and UNCC (and to a lesser extent UTSA), because they had "Potential" of being great schools if they put some effort behind it and were regional 'partners' to existing schools (UNT and the U_F's have a lot more work to do).

We (the fans) have taken shellacing after shellacing from nBE/A12/GAC fans, because they weren't "Immediate" powers. Yet, it sounds like you're okay with a fledgling small school now, because it fits for Temple? (Not saying you're right or wrong, I'm just trying to figure the change in opinion)

Quote:Tulsa, SMU, Houston, and Tulane shore up the Southwest. Cinci and Memphis are the Mid-America, ECU + Navy make up the East Coast, UCF + USF make up an island of sorts in Florida. The only real options in the North-East to aid UConn and Temple in travel are UMass and... well Army, but they aren't interested.

What about the deep south itself? I mean it's also a hotbed, and USM would be good in that regards. (Yes, they have added the Florida/east coast reach). So to USM is basically saying, "we don't care about the deep south potential, as much as we have to get a NE buddy for Temple.)

Quote:This is also reasoning for ODU and UNCC. Sure they aren't strong now, and maybe they will never be strong, but the backbone of the conference is set, and we need to garner regional interest in the conference.

UMass, Tulsa, ODU, UNCC all expand upon existing geographies without saturating them.

Now this is where I'm confused.. are you saying the nBE needs to look at ODU/UNCC for future issues? Again, why are they "good enough" for nBE consideration, but if they're in C-USA they're just "FBS elevated teams"?

Quote:

The detractions of USM:
• Location (both in Hattiesburg, and 60 miles away from an already established location without bringing anything else [market wise / substantial interest ala Boise State] to the table).
• The status of your athletic department (bankrupt)
  

Again, see the above about Deep South vs. New England/NE US.

Quote:These detractions are short, but they are large. Athletic prowess is fickle; athletic investment is not. No one doubts your achievements on the field (though one could argue that you have peaked)

And we peaked in the 70's.. and in the 80's.. and in the 90's.. and the 00's... and now we peaked the 10's?

Quote:It is also my opinion that no fledgling school should be invited without contractual obligations to invest in football. That means UMass would have to build an OCS or at least get a closer stadium. UNCC and ODU already are doing that (I hear good things about ODU's season ticket percentages). The truth of the matter is, any one of these teams can reach the attendance and season ticket values of USM, Tulsa, Tulane, UAB, Rice, etc. in a matter of 5 years. If you are looking for proof, just ask UConn.

Again, ODU/UNCC are "upstart FBS' Programs when they're invited to C-USA.. but hey, they're going to stabilize the nBE?

(03-12-2013 05:25 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  It's not lateral. I doubt CUSA will have a single bowl tie-in against an AQ opponent after next year.

Again, how is a move from one Go5 to another Go5 conference a Non-Lateral move? I mean right now there's no guarantee that ANY Go5 school with have a bowl-tie in with the "Tyranny" Conferences.

Stinkfist Wrote:If Banowsky not rushed inviting every school he could, & selling the Presidents a bill of goods regarding more TV monies, C-USA would have been better off. What little money is now shared by how many schools now?

Again, we had to fill quickly.. he HAD to replace the markets that jumped, and had to make sure C-USA had enough for a CCG. You could argue that he might have overfilled.. but rushed invites? Nope...

...just to clarify, I did not write that (I think it was AtlantaEagle)...but your rebuttals are really good. ...great arguments....kudos

Is it mandatory to have a CCG? No lapses for even a year? Even though your conference was raided again? Sounds short-sided at the cost of long term stability.
That being said, championship game aside, just think we've got too many programs for the contract now & that's the concern.

If USM has peaked, where is UCF?

(03-12-2013 09:58 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 06:40 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 06:34 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  We'll know if it is a lateral move in three years.

OK... three years from now, if ODU is drawing 50,000 per football game, UNT has a Heisman trophy, MTSU gets to the basketball final, FIU has a 45,000 seat stadium, and LA Tech goes to a Sugar Bowl, I'll concede my point. Odds are we're a one-bid, one and done league in hoops that plays football on Thursdays, and in masturbatory bowl games against the MAC and SBC. So I'm not sure WTF could possibly hapen in three years. It's just empty Internet talk.

Why do you feel the need to explain your position?

Because I keep seeing my fellow USM fans trying to convince themselves/ each other that there's some sort of equivalency between all of the non-AQ conferences. I post this crap over and over, and certain USM fans come back saying "welp... we're all non-AQ so why would we ever pay an exit fee or try to get out?". I'm not going to refute all of those postings, but I do try to respond to enough of them to dispel the worst misconceptions.

(03-13-2013 09:42 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 07:13 PM)Freshy Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 06:20 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 05:58 PM)nastybunch Wrote:  It is absolitely a lateral move, actually would be down in basketball once UConn leaves

So UNT has a Heisman, like UH? FIU has a 40,000 seat stadium like UCF? ODU has finished ranked in the top ten football, like ECU? Does LA Tech have as many Sugar Bowls as Tulane? How about their academics? SMU has "Pony Express": Dickerson, Craig James, all those Cotton Bowls... and UTSA has... enthusiasm? Memphis was in the hoops final a few years ago... so was MTSU at least in the Elite 8?

I wish we didn't have to go over this repeatedly. I'm willing to make the best of a bad situation. As far as FCS schools with high hopes go, we've picked some good ones. But you need to get real. This ain't "lateral"... not even close.

You do realize that very few of these things actually happened in CUSA, right? I mean, when you take that into consideration, your internet talk is just as empty as everyone else's is.

If we're going to pre-CUSA past, Rice has a 70k stadium, has finished top ten in the country in attendance, one sweet 16 and two elite eight appearances, a Sugar Bowl appearance, an Orange Bowl win, and four Cotton Bowl appearances (three wins). And a national championship in baseball. (Which even occurred this century.)

Hopefully that has cheered Andre up.

Rice is one of the few teams in any of these conferences that I'm truly enthusiastic about being in a conference with. Really, Rice is one of my favorite schools in the whole world, and perhaps the only "elite" school that I have any affection for.

(03-13-2013 09:57 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 05:09 PM)Kruciff Wrote:  The reasoning behind UMass in a phrase:

"Rome wasn't built in a day'"

Kruciff.. i'm a bit confused by your post, so I'm hoping you can clear it up where you're going.

First and foremost, a lot of us in C-USA were in favor of ODU and UNCC (and to a lesser extent UTSA), because they had "Potential" of being great schools if they put some effort behind it and were regional 'partners' to existing schools (UNT and the U_F's have a lot more work to do).

We (the fans) have taken shellacing after shellacing from nBE/A12/GAC fans, because they weren't "Immediate" powers. Yet, it sounds like you're okay with a fledgling small school now, because it fits for Temple? (Not saying you're right or wrong, I'm just trying to figure the change in opinion)

We'd be a fool to not recognize conditions have changed. We've gone from having Boise State, Rutgers, and Louisville on our schedule in football (Georgetown, Marquette, and Notre Dame in basketball) to ECU, Tulane, and possibly Tulsa / UMass in all sports. Nothing against those schools but the differences can't be ignored. The consensus among the "big wigs" that run this yet to be named conference are not looking for the get-rich-quick-fix anymore, but are looking to hole up for possible / eventual defections. It's a balancing act between hot teams and potential teams.

Quote:Tulsa, SMU, Houston, and Tulane shore up the Southwest. Cinci and Memphis are the Mid-America, ECU + Navy make up the East Coast, UCF + USF make up an island of sorts in Florida. The only real options in the North-East to aid UConn and Temple in travel are UMass and... well Army, but they aren't interested.

What about the deep south itself? I mean it's also a hotbed, and USM would be good in that regards. (Yes, they have added the Florida/east coast reach). So to USM is basically saying, "we don't care about the deep south potential, as much as we have to get a NE buddy for Temple.)

Frankly, if we didn't have other mouths to feed, so to speak, USM would be a good geographic fit alongside SMU, UH, and obviously Tulane. The fact of the matter is, if you look at geography, the South is where we have the most members. And the bankruptcy issue STILL cannot be ignored. I've yet to see one USM fan counter this glaring argument, and I've been saying it's probably the biggest reason USM isn't being considered for a while. Cool, you guys are successful now, and in the past, but there's a $20 million gap in athletic budgets between USM and the top of the yet-to-be-named conference. Yours would easily be the smallest.

Quote:This is also reasoning for ODU and UNCC. Sure they aren't strong now, and maybe they will never be strong, but the backbone of the conference is set, and we need to garner regional interest in the conference.

UMass, Tulsa, ODU, UNCC all expand upon existing geographies without saturating them.

Now this is where I'm confused.. are you saying the nBE needs to look at ODU/UNCC for future issues? Again, why are they "good enough" for nBE consideration, but if they're in C-USA they're just "FBS elevated teams"?

ODU has an athletic budget on par with current nBE teams, and doesn't even play FBS football yet. ODU boasts season ticket numbers that compete with many programs average attendance numbers. Norfolk > Birmingham, Huntington, Hattiesburg. Norfolk + Charlotte = Close to ECU + Navy (isolated geographic region). The jury is still out on UNCC but they share 4 out of 5 positive traits i've listed here.

Quote:

The detractions of USM:
• Location (both in Hattiesburg, and 60 miles away from an already established location without bringing anything else [market wise / substantial interest ala Boise State] to the table).
• The status of your athletic department (bankrupt)
  

Again, see the above about Deep South vs. New England/NE US.

Countered

Quote:These detractions are short, but they are large. Athletic prowess is fickle; athletic investment is not. No one doubts your achievements on the field (though one could argue that you have peaked)

And we peaked in the 70's.. and in the 80's.. and in the 90's.. and the 00's... and now we peaked the 10's?

What's the difference between College Athletics in the 70's to 2000's, and now, in terms of competition, popularity, and financial risk/reward? Can USM keep up? What if this new coach of yours flounders like Ellis? Do you have the ability to hire the coach you want?

Quote:It is also my opinion that no fledgling school should be invited without contractual obligations to invest in football. That means UMass would have to build an OCS or at least get a closer stadium. UNCC and ODU already are doing that (I hear good things about ODU's season ticket percentages). The truth of the matter is, any one of these teams can reach the attendance and season ticket values of USM, Tulsa, Tulane, UAB, Rice, etc. in a matter of 5 years. If you are looking for proof, just ask UConn.

Again, ODU/UNCC are "upstart FBS' Programs when they're invited to C-USA.. but hey, they're going to stabilize the nBE?

We don't HAVE to add anyone, but the mentality from HQ is safe, high potential additions that are willing and capable of investing big time in college athletics.

I think you guys are taking my responses too personal. Some view this as my wish or opinion, when i'm merely reiterating potential reasons as to why USM isn't getting the look. If you guys get the invite tomorrow, I will about face and welcome you with open arms, just as I did ECU and Memphis and Tulane. But until that time, these are the reasons it is unlikely that will happen.

Quote:We don't HAVE to add anyone, but the mentality from HQ is safe, high potential additions that are willing and capable of investing big time in college athletics.

Again, That's my argument. (and this isn't aimed at you in particular, Kruc... it's basically to all the people who have been blasting C-USA for trying to rebuild.)

C-USA took the chance and invited teams that are willing "but the conference got slammed by fans of the current nBE teams and even by fans of the teams that are leaving C-USA for the nBE (some houston fans included) for bringing in "lousy FBS startup" teams.

So why are those same fans saying "Hey, here's a team because of it's potential" that we should invite, and it would be a great investment for the future.

So those teams went from "Lousy startups" to "Potential" simply because the fans of the nBE schools want them?

(03-13-2013 08:52 AM)AtlantaEagle Wrote:  If Banowsky not rushed inviting every school he could, & selling the Presidents a bill of goods regarding more TV monies, C-USA would have been better off. What little money is now shared by how many schools now?
Not saying some would have not been invited, but why so soon, & why so many?
You did not see Thompson & the MWC backfill quickly & they're looking good.
Banowsky's was perhaps the worst commissioner this conference could have picked in the expansion era.

When he invited those teams boise and sdsu were still going to the nbe and it looked like we were going to lose several member to the mwc as replacements along with the ones who had already bolted for the nbe. You had ECU and Memphis begging to leave he decided to be proactive