(03-26-2013 09:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 07:01 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 05:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 02:54 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 02:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  East-west would be an obvious way to go.

East: UConn, Temple, ECU, Navy, UCF, USF
West: Cincinnati, Memphis, Tulane, Tulsa, Houston, SMU

Yep, and I love that east division. Each one of those football games are against someone I am interested to see ECU play.

Yup. The east is much more fun. The west division schedule looks like a typical year in CUSA. And people cant figure out why I preferred moving to the MW. Its not bad, it just the same ol' sh**. Pretty depressing that this is what all the manuevering and shifting has amounted to.

What would have been your preferred line-up in the MWC and would/could it realistically have happened (ie were there schools that wouldn't have gone for the line-up thus making it an unrealistic expectation for Houston)?

IM not sure what you are asking, but what I would have liked to see was 4 moving to MW. Say, Tulsa, S Miss, Houston and SMU. The idea would be 2 8-team divisions. Nine game schedule with 2 crossover games. The new MW eastern division would have looked like this--


Air Force
Wyoming
Colorado St
New Mexico
Houston
SMU
Tulsa
S Miss

Thats a nice new look division that maintains rivalries and is not too horrible for travel. In terms of home games, we would see the Air Force Acadamy regularly. We would play 2 state flagships. Theres some solid basketball there. The main thing to me is that at the very least---its different. By the time we split into divisions it will be hard to tell the difference between the Houston 2012 CUSA schedule and the Houston 2014 C-TBA schedule. Like I said, C-TBA is not going to be a bad league. But it looks so similar to the current C-USA that its hard to work up alot of enthusiasm for the move.

Houston and SMU want eastern exposure for academics. I know our president has spoken to yours about how the east coast students tend to need less financial aid. That is huge. For SMU that runs in the millions.

(03-26-2013 09:07 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 09:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 07:01 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 05:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 02:54 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Yep, and I love that east division. Each one of those football games are against someone I am interested to see ECU play.

Yup. The east is much more fun. The west division schedule looks like a typical year in CUSA. And people cant figure out why I preferred moving to the MW. Its not bad, it just the same ol' sh**. Pretty depressing that this is what all the manuevering and shifting has amounted to.

What would have been your preferred line-up in the MWC and would/could it realistically have happened (ie were there schools that wouldn't have gone for the line-up thus making it an unrealistic expectation for Houston)?

IM not sure what you are asking, but what I would have liked to see was 4 moving to MW. Say, Tulsa, S Miss, Houston and SMU. The idea would be 2 8-team divisions. Nine game schedule with 2 crossover games. The new MW eastern division would have looked like this--


Air Force
Wyoming
Colorado St
New Mexico
Houston
SMU
Tulsa
S Miss

Thats a nice new look division that maintains rivalries and is not too horrible for travel. In terms of home games, we would see the Air Force Acadamy regularly. We would play 2 state flagships. Theres some solid basketball there. The main thing to me is that at the very least---its different. By the time we split into divisions it will be hard to tell the difference between the Houston 2012 CUSA schedule and the Houston 2014 C-TBA schedule. Like I said, C-TBA is not going to be a bad league. But it looks so similar to the current C-USA that its hard to work up alot of enthusiasm for the move.

Houston and SMU want eastern exposure for academics. I know our president has spoken to yours about how the east coast students tend to need less financial aid. That is huge. For SMU that runs in the millions.

I undestand that. But playing the same old same old is not going to drive attendance increases. If we want to move up, thats the name of the game. If Houston and SMU are putting 50K each in the stands regularly, they will get taken by a power conference. Playing a CUSA schedule isnt going to sell 50K tickets in Houston. Thirty to 40K is probably the best that schedule is going to get. I dont know if you could sell Air Force, a couple of western state flagships, and an occaisional Boise game any better---but I think its worth a shot (especially with a new stadium).

(03-26-2013 09:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 09:07 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 09:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 07:01 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 05:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Yup. The east is much more fun. The west division schedule looks like a typical year in CUSA. And people cant figure out why I preferred moving to the MW. Its not bad, it just the same ol' sh**. Pretty depressing that this is what all the manuevering and shifting has amounted to.

What would have been your preferred line-up in the MWC and would/could it realistically have happened (ie were there schools that wouldn't have gone for the line-up thus making it an unrealistic expectation for Houston)?

IM not sure what you are asking, but what I would have liked to see was 4 moving to MW. Say, Tulsa, S Miss, Houston and SMU. The idea would be 2 8-team divisions. Nine game schedule with 2 crossover games. The new MW eastern division would have looked like this--


Air Force
Wyoming
Colorado St
New Mexico
Houston
SMU
Tulsa
S Miss

Thats a nice new look division that maintains rivalries and is not too horrible for travel. In terms of home games, we would see the Air Force Acadamy regularly. We would play 2 state flagships. Theres some solid basketball there. The main thing to me is that at the very least---its different. By the time we split into divisions it will be hard to tell the difference between the Houston 2012 CUSA schedule and the Houston 2014 C-TBA schedule. Like I said, C-TBA is not going to be a bad league. But it looks so similar to the current C-USA that its hard to work up alot of enthusiasm for the move.

Houston and SMU want eastern exposure for academics. I know our president has spoken to yours about how the east coast students tend to need less financial aid. That is huge. For SMU that runs in the millions.

I undestand that. But playing the same old same old is not going to drive attendance increases. If we want to move up, thats the name of the game. If Houston and SMU are putting 50K each in the stands regularly, they will get taken by a power conference. Playing a CUSA schedule isnt going to sell 50K tickets in Houston. Thirty to 40K is probably the best that schedule is going to get. I dont know if you could sell Air Force, a couple of western state flagships, and an occaisional Boise game any better---but I think its worth a shot (especially with a new stadium).

I think raising our academic profiles are equally as important now which both schools are doing

(03-26-2013 09:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 07:01 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 05:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 02:54 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 02:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  East-west would be an obvious way to go.

East: UConn, Temple, ECU, Navy, UCF, USF
West: Cincinnati, Memphis, Tulane, Tulsa, Houston, SMU

Yep, and I love that east division. Each one of those football games are against someone I am interested to see ECU play.

Yup. The east is much more fun. The west division schedule looks like a typical year in CUSA. And people cant figure out why I preferred moving to the MW. Its not bad, it just the same ol' sh**. Pretty depressing that this is what all the manuevering and shifting has amounted to.

What would have been your preferred line-up in the MWC and would/could it realistically have happened (ie were there schools that wouldn't have gone for the line-up thus making it an unrealistic expectation for Houston)?

Im not sure what you are asking, but what I would have liked to see was 4 moving to the MW. Say, Tulsa, Houston, SMU, and S Miss (could be Memphis also--distance is similar). The idea would be 2 8-team divisions. Nine game schedule with 2 crossover games. The new MW eastern division would have looked like this--


Air Force
Wyoming
Colorado St
New Mexico
Houston
SMU
Tulsa
S Miss/Memphis/BYU (pipe dream)

Thats a nice new look division that maintains rivalries and is not too horrible for travel. In terms of home games, we would see the Air Force Acadamy regularly. We would play 2 state flagships. Theres some solid basketball there. The main thing to me is that at the very least---its different. By the time we split into divisions it will be hard to tell the difference between the Houston 2012 CUSA schedule and the Houston 2014 C-TBA schedule. Like I said, C-TBA is not going to be a bad league. But it looks so similar to the current C-USA that its hard to work up alot of enthusiasm for the move.

Each attempt to do something like that hasn't worked (merger and coast to coast Big East) because there's not enough money in it. Why would that all of a sudden make big money when the Big East and merger couldn't? The answer is it wouldn't. Not to mention think about the division you'd be playing in that. It would be half C-USA and the Front Range schools. Aside from being different it's not more appealing in any way.

I think you put Navy in the West. UC East. Keep some semi-rivalries alive. I don't think you should break up Temple/UConn/UC and ECU/USF/UCF. Anything else is too overly complicated and adds excess cost.

(03-27-2013 07:48 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I think you put Navy in the West. UC East. Keep some semi-rivalries alive. I don't think you should break up Temple/UConn/UC and ECU/USF/UCF. Anything else is too overly complicated and adds excess cost.

That can work, if you make permanent cross division rivals. There is no reason that UC and Memphis should not play every year.

(03-26-2013 02:57 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Gonna be fun to listen to Trollgrass. I might actually have to take him off ignore just to read how he deals with this.

you're a sucker for punishment

(03-26-2013 08:54 PM)Texas2Step Wrote:  Please, no. 12 is enough, Tulsa isn't bringing another penny to the league as it is, ...

It is, in the sense of making a Conference Championship Game possible ~ both directly in terms of the CCG itself and indirectly in terms of the fight against the MWC for the Best of the Rest spot in the "Contract" bowls, where the odds are that the CCG and 13-game record makes the strongest MWC school look stronger than a Big TBA school would look on a 12-game record.

But on the same argument ~ the Big TBA should be aiming at exactly 12 football schools. There'd be no more schools out there available to be picked that would add more than they take, except for the "12 schools to hold a CCG" rule.

I'm glad things are settling down for the Aresco League, and that SDSU and Boise are not coming. Works out best for everyone (including us).

(03-27-2013 07:17 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 09:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 07:01 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 05:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 02:54 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Yep, and I love that east division. Each one of those football games are against someone I am interested to see ECU play.

Yup. The east is much more fun. The west division schedule looks like a typical year in CUSA. And people cant figure out why I preferred moving to the MW. Its not bad, it just the same ol' sh**. Pretty depressing that this is what all the manuevering and shifting has amounted to.

What would have been your preferred line-up in the MWC and would/could it realistically have happened (ie were there schools that wouldn't have gone for the line-up thus making it an unrealistic expectation for Houston)?

Im not sure what you are asking, but what I would have liked to see was 4 moving to the MW. Say, Tulsa, Houston, SMU, and S Miss (could be Memphis also--distance is similar). The idea would be 2 8-team divisions. Nine game schedule with 2 crossover games. The new MW eastern division would have looked like this--


Air Force
Wyoming
Colorado St
New Mexico
Houston
SMU
Tulsa
S Miss/Memphis/BYU (pipe dream)

Thats a nice new look division that maintains rivalries and is not too horrible for travel. In terms of home games, we would see the Air Force Acadamy regularly. We would play 2 state flagships. Theres some solid basketball there. The main thing to me is that at the very least---its different. By the time we split into divisions it will be hard to tell the difference between the Houston 2012 CUSA schedule and the Houston 2014 C-TBA schedule. Like I said, C-TBA is not going to be a bad league. But it looks so similar to the current C-USA that its hard to work up alot of enthusiasm for the move.

Each attempt to do something like that hasn't worked (merger and coast to coast Big East) because there's not enough money in it. Why would that all of a sudden make big money when the Big East and merger couldn't? The answer is it wouldn't. Not to mention think about the division you'd be playing in that. It would be half C-USA and the Front Range schools. Aside from being different it's not more appealing in any way.

I never said a word about about it being worth big bucks. Both conferences will have minimum wage paychecks. My point is to increase attendance. Playing the same basic CUSA schedule will not sell to tickets in a city that has so many other options (at least it hasnt yet).

Thirty to forty thousand is about the best we can expect playing the same guys we have played for the last 15 years. What I'm saying is that if you are changing conferences, it's a reasonable expectation that your schedule should look different. That change, even there's little true difference in quality might drive additional sales. At least there's a shot. We know there's not going to be any sudden uptick to playing the same old same old.

(03-27-2013 05:52 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 07:17 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 09:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The new MW eastern division would have looked like this--


Air Force
Wyoming
Colorado St
New Mexico
Houston
SMU
Tulsa
S Miss/Memphis/BYU (pipe dream)

Each attempt to do something like that hasn't worked (merger and coast to coast Big East) because there's not enough money in it. Why would that all of a sudden make big money when the Big East and merger couldn't? The answer is it wouldn't. Not to mention think about the division you'd be playing in that. It would be half C-USA and the Front Range schools. Aside from being different it's not more appealing in any way.

I never said a word about about it being worth big bucks. Both conferences will have minimum wage paychecks. My point is to increase attendance.

Air Force and Boise are the only 2 Mtn. schools with any added punch at the box-office.

(03-27-2013 07:48 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I think you put Navy in the West. UC East. Keep some semi-rivalries alive. I don't think you should break up Temple/UConn/UC and ECU/USF/UCF. Anything else is too overly complicated and adds excess cost.

Serious question: Does Cincinnati care about playing UConn and Temple in football every year? I'd think they'd rather be with Memphis.

(03-27-2013 05:05 PM)jdgaucho Wrote:  I'm glad things are settling down for the Aresco League, and that SDSU and Boise are not coming. Works out best for everyone (including us).

It would've been nice to have a recognized national power in football, although Boise's academics are just so atrocious that -- combined with the remote geography-- I had mixed feelings all along about them staying.

San Diego is a very nice destination, obviously. Almost like a mini-bowl game every time you play there. So I was definitely wishing they would stay. But I can easily understand why that didn't make much sense from their standpoint.

(03-27-2013 06:00 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Serious question: Does Cincinnati care about playing UConn and Temple in football every year? I'd think they'd rather be with Memphis.

Cincy fans can speak for themselves but I think they want to be in the same division as UCF and USF if at all possible. I think they recruit Florida a lot more than Texas, although Tuberville (Miami assistant for 8 yrs) surely has some contacts in Texas from being in Lubbock the past few years.

(03-26-2013 09:22 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 09:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 09:07 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 09:02 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 07:01 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  What would have been your preferred line-up in the MWC and would/could it realistically have happened (ie were there schools that wouldn't have gone for the line-up thus making it an unrealistic expectation for Houston)?

IM not sure what you are asking, but what I would have liked to see was 4 moving to MW. Say, Tulsa, S Miss, Houston and SMU. The idea would be 2 8-team divisions. Nine game schedule with 2 crossover games. The new MW eastern division would have looked like this--


Air Force
Wyoming
Colorado St
New Mexico
Houston
SMU
Tulsa
S Miss

Thats a nice new look division that maintains rivalries and is not too horrible for travel. In terms of home games, we would see the Air Force Acadamy regularly. We would play 2 state flagships. Theres some solid basketball there. The main thing to me is that at the very least---its different. By the time we split into divisions it will be hard to tell the difference between the Houston 2012 CUSA schedule and the Houston 2014 C-TBA schedule. Like I said, C-TBA is not going to be a bad league. But it looks so similar to the current C-USA that its hard to work up alot of enthusiasm for the move.

Houston and SMU want eastern exposure for academics. I know our president has spoken to yours about how the east coast students tend to need less financial aid. That is huge. For SMU that runs in the millions.

I undestand that. But playing the same old same old is not going to drive attendance increases. If we want to move up, thats the name of the game. If Houston and SMU are putting 50K each in the stands regularly, they will get taken by a power conference. Playing a CUSA schedule isnt going to sell 50K tickets in Houston. Thirty to 40K is probably the best that schedule is going to get. I dont know if you could sell Air Force, a couple of western state flagships, and an occaisional Boise game any better---but I think its worth a shot (especially with a new stadium).

I think raising our academic profiles are equally as important now which both schools are doing

Put BU back on your respective schedules. If I had my way make UofH a season opener every year or alternate that game with Rice and SMU would be our annual Thanksgiving week game. That will help on local game attendance, nothing like old school rivalries to get the locals spun-up. SMU is only 100 miles up I-35 and Houston market is home to a large percentage of Baylor Grads. Besides the Coogs would love to boo Art back in Houston.