Lots of hate here - yikes.

(03-28-2013 09:08 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Adding Tulsa is a terrible decision. Short term success in football is not a good reason to add a program. The elite conferences plan long term and don't worry about recent success, i.e. Rutgers & Maryland to the B1G, Missouri to the SEC, Colorado to the Pac 12.

Tulsa simply reinforces the identity of this conference as a southern based reincarnation of CUSA. It extends the lineup of second tier schools who play in the shadow of power conferences. It adds a school from a small/medium state that already has 2 other major player in college sports. Being #3 in a state of 4 million is really bad planning for the long term success of the conference. Tulsa is no TCU or Boise State whose success & emerging national reputations made it easy to overlook other considerations of market + other related factors.

If there was no program ready to step up that enhanced the profile of the conference and improved its long term prospects, then it made no sense to add #12 just of the sake of getting to a certain number.

Tulsa's had some very good years lately. They're coming off a CUSA championship, their 2nd in the past decade and their 8th bowl (5 wins) in the past decade. That's a very good record. But these things run in cycles. Everyone can't win every year. Immediately prior to this past decade, they went 16 straight seasons without a winning record. So, one has to ask the question: what does Tulsa bring to the party when they're in a down cycle?

They don't bring strong attendance. Even with all that success, they've been averaging 20,000+ in recent years. They aren't ECU with 50,000 in the stands. They aren't Memphis with a highly competitive basketball program.
They aren't Houston bringing the conference into a major market. They aren't UCF bringing an enrollment of 50,000. (Tulas is a small school with an undergrad enrollment of 3000+).

Tulsa moves the program south and west. Away from the markets that actually have growth potential. This was a very short sighted decision that does nothing to help the conference build for the long term.

Going to 12 isn't just for the sake of getting to a number. The Go5 conferences without a championship game will not receive the same payouts as those that do. This has been hinted at numerous times and Karl Benson spoke directly to that point this week. At the Go5 level, the $$$ is EXTREMELY important in remaining competitive. There wasn't a better choice for on the field competitiveness. Over a decade of success even with numerous coaching changes speaks volumes. That is looking long term. The soon-to-be named conference needs strength and that school had what the conference needed. A new market wouldn't have helped us at all.

(03-27-2013 11:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The MAC wasn't a step down from CUSA in 2012 and that was the only year that UMass was in the MAC.

Its a fun conference, and it was great fun to see the Golden Flashes go as far as they were able to go, but I'm not about to say we're a step up from Conference USA in terms of conference realignment as a result. For example, they have 5 primary bowl tie-ins, we only have three.

(03-28-2013 09:08 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  If there was no program ready to step up that enhanced the profile of the conference and improved its long term prospects, then it made no sense to add #12 just of the sake of getting to a certain number.

But 12 is not just ANY number. Its a number with (1) $$$ and (2) big opportunities for expanded media coverage attached. Given that the Big TBA has lost its AQ status, its major opportunity for remaining substantially ahead of the other mid-majors is to become seen as the "Best of the Rest". For that to happen, its champion needs to be the Group of Five representative for three or more of the six contract years. And without a CCG, the odds of that happening take a big hit.

So, given that the Big TBA NEEDS 12, name the BETTER add. UMass surely isn't, and its the other one that was most often named.

As far as being #3 in a smallish state ... well, welcome to the mid-majors, dude. The Big TBA doesn't have the OPTION of picking the schools that have a ticket to one of the Big Five conferences. This is about getting the schools y'all CAN get, not about getting the schools you'd get if your wildest dreams came true.

Toledo would be a GREAT choice to add. It's about the 45th largest city in the country. (4th in Ohio, 2nd if in Michgan, larger than Dayton) 2 Airport: Toledo and Detroit Metro. Alums in TV markets in Cleveland (hour and half away) & Detroit (hour away). Has a revamped Basketball arena. A VERY good women's BB team (currently 29-3). and ask the Bearcat fans about our football team. 3 start bowls and last two seasons 9-4. Draw 25,000 for home game when play on Saturday nights with a MAC schedule (which no one like to watch the MAC). Would draw over 35,000 in a better conference.

(03-28-2013 12:04 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 11:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The MAC wasn't a step down from CUSA in 2012 and that was the only year that UMass was in the MAC.

Its a fun conference, and it was great fun to see the Golden Flashes go as far as they were able to go, but I'm not about to say we're a step up from Conference USA in terms of conference realignment as a result. For example, they have 5 primary bowl tie-ins, we only have three.

(03-28-2013 09:08 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  If there was no program ready to step up that enhanced the profile of the conference and improved its long term prospects, then it made no sense to add #12 just of the sake of getting to a certain number.

But 12 is not just ANY number. Its a number with (1) $$$ and (2) big opportunities for expanded media coverage attached. Given that the Big TBA has lost its AQ status, its major opportunity for remaining substantially ahead of the other mid-majors is to become seen as the "Best of the Rest". For that to happen, its champion needs to be the Group of Five representative for three or more of the six contract years. And without a CCG, the odds of that happening take a big hit.

So, given that the Big TBA NEEDS 12, name the BETTER add. UMass surely isn't, and its the other one that was most often named.

As far as being #3 in a smallish state ... well, welcome to the mid-majors, dude. The Big TBA doesn't have the OPTION of picking the schools that have a ticket to one of the Big Five conferences. This is about getting the schools y'all CAN get, not about getting the schools you'd get if your wildest dreams came true.

We probably weren't a step up, but not a step down either. We might be a step up now after all the changes, on the football field.

We obviously don't match up bowl-wise still, as of now.

(03-28-2013 03:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  We probably weren't a step up, but not a step down either. We might be a step up now after all the changes, on the football field.

We obviously don't match up bowl-wise still, as of now.

The test of the pudding is in the eating. If the MAC has moved up and the CUSA dropped far enough that the two are level, the bowl tie-ins will even up too.

But given annual media revenues estimated by Forbes at $18m for the CUSA and $2m for the MAC, and CUSA's status as a 1-2 bid BBall conference versus the MAC's status as an AQ-only BBall conference, and the current gap in bowl tie-ins, one unsuccessful effort at BCS busting does not on its own make for a flip of the previous positioning of our conference versus the CUSA.

Its a bit of a distinction without a difference at the moment, though ~ they are unstable enough that even though they are a step up in bowl tie-ins and media revenues, they're not likely to be in a position to raid us, which is where the status of the different FBS conferences is most important.

Tulsa is not the answer to our prayers, but they also won't be a drag on the conference.

They're the best option out there. They'll blend in ... perfectly and unspectacularly.

(03-27-2013 06:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 06:17 PM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  Besides nothing and another far flung school to travel to?

Stop whining. Eight of the 12 teams are located in the east. Give it break. When we go to divisions you'll travel west once or twice a year for football and four times a year for basketball. We probably will go to divisonal play for a lot of the non-revenue sports to reduce costs. It's just not going to be a big deal. Truth be told, the real travel burden is on the western schools.

True. No need to take a train or bus. We have jets now. A whole extra hour or two. Not really that tough on the athletes

(03-27-2013 06:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 06:17 PM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  Besides nothing and another far flung school to travel to?

Stop whining. Eight of the 12 teams are located in the east. Give it break. When we go to divisions you'll travel west once or twice a year for football and four times a year for basketball. We probably will go to divisonal play for a lot of the non-revenue sports to reduce costs. It's just not going to be a big deal. Truth be told, the real travel burden is on the western schools.

Are you sure about divisions for sports other than football? The conference is going to have 11 teams (including ECU and Tulsa) for all sports other than football, not 12.

(03-28-2013 07:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Are you sure about divisions for sports other than football? The conference is going to have 11 teams (including ECU and Tulsa) for all sports other than football, not 12.

And the way Olympic sports work, not 11 teams in all sports ~ its:

11: M/W BBall, W volleyball, W Tennis
10: W Soccer, W Cross Country / Track, M Golf
9: Baseball, M Cross Country / Track, M Golf, M Tennis, W Golf
8: M Soccer, Softball
5: W Swimming, W Rowing
3: M Swimming, W Field Hockey, W Lacrosse

Note, however, that the minimum size for a division in Olympic sports (other than basketball) is 4 teams.

(03-28-2013 09:23 AM)goldenhurricane2 Wrote:  Lots of hate here - yikes.

Common thing, and even expected; when those around you think they are much better than you.... Even when equal for the most part.

(03-27-2013 06:17 PM)darkdragon99 Wrote:  Besides nothing and another far flung school to travel to?

Who would you have added? Sorry, Alabama is not available.

ODU would've been a decent choice. Natural rivalry with ECU which could add energy to our league, big football and basketball recruiting area, great attendance for FCS, great basketball attendance, large alumni base. They could easily hit 30k a game within two years in a league with ECU, UCF, and Temple. I know they would get more than 20k for a title game vs UCF.

(03-29-2013 01:27 PM)Texas2Step Wrote:  ODU would've been a decent choice. Natural rivalry with ECU which could add energy to our league, big football and basketball recruiting area, great attendance for FCS, great basketball attendance, large alumni base. They could easily hit 30k a game within two years in a league with ECU, UCF, and Temple. I know they would get more than 20k for a title game vs UCF.

The Big TBA was not interested in getting into the transitioning FCS school game ~ on the reporting, that was ruled out fairly early on in the process.

(03-28-2013 09:26 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(03-28-2013 09:08 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Adding Tulsa is a terrible decision. Short term success in football is not a good reason to add a program. The elite conferences plan long term and don't worry about recent success, i.e. Rutgers & Maryland to the B1G, Missouri to the SEC, Colorado to the Pac 12.

Tulsa simply reinforces the identity of this conference as a southern based reincarnation of CUSA. It extends the lineup of second tier schools who play in the shadow of power conferences. It adds a school from a small/medium state that already has 2 other major player in college sports. Being #3 in a state of 4 million is really bad planning for the long term success of the conference. Tulsa is no TCU or Boise State whose success & emerging national reputations made it easy to overlook other considerations of market + other related factors.

If there was no program ready to step up that enhanced the profile of the conference and improved its long term prospects, then it made no sense to add #12 just of the sake of getting to a certain number.

Tulsa's had some very good years lately. They're coming off a CUSA championship, their 2nd in the past decade and their 8th bowl (5 wins) in the past decade. That's a very good record. But these things run in cycles. Everyone can't win every year. Immediately prior to this past decade, they went 16 straight seasons without a winning record. So, one has to ask the question: what does Tulsa bring to the party when they're in a down cycle?

They don't bring strong attendance. Even with all that success, they've been averaging 20,000+ in recent years. They aren't ECU with 50,000 in the stands. They aren't Memphis with a highly competitive basketball program.
They aren't Houston bringing the conference into a major market. They aren't UCF bringing an enrollment of 50,000. (Tulas is a small school with an undergrad enrollment of 3000+).

Tulsa moves the program south and west. Away from the markets that actually have growth potential. This was a very short sighted decision that does nothing to help the conference build for the long term.

Going to 12 isn't just for the sake of getting to a number. The Go5 conferences without a championship game will not receive the same payouts as those that do. This has been hinted at numerous times and Karl Benson spoke directly to that point this week. At the Go5 level, the $$$ is EXTREMELY important in remaining competitive. There wasn't a better choice for on the field competitiveness. Over a decade of success even with numerous coaching changes speaks volumes. That is looking long term. The soon-to-be named conference needs strength and that school had what the conference needed. A new market wouldn't have helped us at all.

"OVER a decade of success"???

I don't think so. They've had 8 winning seasons in the past 25 years. Basketball is just as bad. Not a single tournament appearance in the past decade.

(03-28-2013 12:04 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 11:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  The MAC wasn't a step down from CUSA in 2012 and that was the only year that UMass was in the MAC.

Its a fun conference, and it was great fun to see the Golden Flashes go as far as they were able to go, but I'm not about to say we're a step up from Conference USA in terms of conference realignment as a result. For example, they have 5 primary bowl tie-ins, we only have three.

(03-28-2013 09:08 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  If there was no program ready to step up that enhanced the profile of the conference and improved its long term prospects, then it made no sense to add #12 just of the sake of getting to a certain number.

But 12 is not just ANY number. Its a number with (1) $$$ and (2) big opportunities for expanded media coverage attached. Given that the Big TBA has lost its AQ status, its major opportunity for remaining substantially ahead of the other mid-majors is to become seen as the "Best of the Rest". For that to happen, its champion needs to be the Group of Five representative for three or more of the six contract years. And without a CCG, the odds of that happening take a big hit.

So, given that the Big TBA NEEDS 12, name the BETTER add. UMass surely isn't, and its the other one that was most often named.

As far as being #3 in a smallish state ... well, welcome to the mid-majors, dude. The Big TBA doesn't have the OPTION of picking the schools that have a ticket to one of the Big Five conferences. This is about getting the schools y'all CAN get, not about getting the schools you'd get if your wildest dreams came true.

Tulsa is a small, private school with 8 winning seasons in the past 25 years. Even UMass would have brought more to the party for the long term. And they bring nothing in basketball.

(03-28-2013 10:59 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(03-28-2013 09:23 AM)goldenhurricane2 Wrote:  Lots of hate here - yikes.

Common thing, and even expected; when those around you think they are much better than you.... Even when equal for the most part.

Equal??? ROTFLMAO.

(03-30-2013 01:13 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  Tulsa is a small, private school with 8 winning seasons in the past 25 years.

Or, in other word, they've only recently been successful in football.

Quote: Even UMass would have brought more to the party for the long term.

But the Big TBA have several eastern schools better than UMass already, they were looking for the best Western school they could add, for the coming Western division.

And unlike Tulsa, UMass doesn't bring any indication of ever having any success in football. If the Big TBA was going to reach down to the MAC for a school, they would have gone for one of the best football schools available, not one of the worst.

Indeed, there are likely a number of UMass fans more upset by their finish in the Hockey East cellar than by their finish in the MAC football cellar.

Quote: And they bring nothing in basketball.

If they brought a lot in BBall, they would have been invited in the last round. And I notice you didn't go back twenty five years to judge their BBall program, as you did with their FB program.

(03-30-2013 01:19 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-28-2013 10:59 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(03-28-2013 09:23 AM)goldenhurricane2 Wrote:  Lots of hate here - yikes.

Common thing, and even expected; when those around you think they are much better than you.... Even when equal for the most part.

Equal??? ROTFLMAO.

Comparable schools cluster together to form conferences. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you going to be sharing one with Tulsa?

(03-30-2013 12:58 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 01:19 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(03-28-2013 10:59 PM)RUNVSFD MINER Wrote:  

(03-28-2013 09:23 AM)goldenhurricane2 Wrote:  Lots of hate here - yikes.

Common thing, and even expected; when those around you think they are much better than you.... Even when equal for the most part.

Equal??? ROTFLMAO.

Comparable schools cluster together to form conferences. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you going to be sharing one with Tulsa?

And you will be sharing one with Florida Atlantic. What is your point?