(04-10-2013 10:01 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  By the way, not JUST UC and UConn will leave AAC for ACC. Either there will be NO movement, or there will be 4-6 teams moving.

Four teams moving don't imply four reloads ~ over in BBall look at the A10, which was at sixteen, are losing five, but are not reloading five. Instead, they are going to end up smaller than 16, since there are only so many schools available that help shore up their RPI.

If the ACC loses four, it depends on which four whether they are going to be inclined to invite USF and/or UCF, and there are four-school scenarios where reloading with just UC and UConn would make sense.

(04-10-2013 11:04 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(04-10-2013 10:23 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(04-10-2013 10:11 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(04-10-2013 12:43 AM)AntiG Wrote:  the AAC was already looking at UMass, Buffalo, Southern Miss and Northern Illinois. Army already has a standing invite and is not really a back-fill candidate.

Well, when you lose UConn and Cincy you will also lose your very modest $2 million TV deal and then the AAC will totally be CUSA with a $1 million TV deal which is right back to where you were the last few years when MAC teams declined your offers, so what makes you think the AAC can even lure MAC teams? You couldn't before, you think the AAC name slapped onto the same CUSA teams will fool us? The last time Cincy left, invitations were extended to MAC schools and we said no. Cincy will leave again, and we will say no regardless of your new name.

The Big East never invited any MAC programs. Show me otherwise if you believe they did.

The CUSA did invite MAC teams, and that is exactly what you are with a different name. Follow along. Houston, SMU, Tulane, ECU, UCF, Tulsa, Cincinnati etc = CUSA no matter what name-change label you slap on. The last time Cincinnati left that same group of schools (2004), CUSA (now AAC) invited MAC teams and 2 or 3 declined (Miami and Toledo for sure declined). Changing your name from CUSA to AAC isn't fooling anybody and when UC and UConn leave, ESPN will terminate the TV deal and the new TV deal will be exactly what CUSA gets.

Maybe the schools in the "MAC" should change our name to the "B1GG TENN" so that we can all of a sudden get arrogant and overestimate our worth like the schools in "CUSA" did with "AAC"

Think that will work?
.

the expansion feelers from cusa to toledo and miami-ohio were, in fact, turned away - but there were no official invites as schools and conferences try to avoid publicly (officially) inviting or offering to hire anyone unless they have already agreed to say yes.

as far as our tv contract; i'm not sure it falls all the way to cusa money, but it would certainly be re-worked down if cincinnati and connecticut leave. we'd stilll have temple, memphis and tulsa basketball which would still be a good basketball conference (at least at the top) but it would be pretty hard to find anyone interested in the football games with ecu having no one of similar talent to play in conference. of course, we'd invite southern miss at that point, so football would get a small boost back to respectability. a southern miss - ecu game would draw, if nothing else.

sorry - i get a little down when the tournament ends.

(04-10-2013 11:20 AM)e-bethMSU Wrote:  the expansion feelers from cusa to toledo and miami-ohio were, in fact, turned away - but there were no official invites as schools and conferences try to avoid publicly (officially) inviting or offering to hire anyone unless they have already agreed to say yes.

I'm assuming this is when Toledo and MiamiU BBall programs were in upswings?

(04-10-2013 11:20 AM)e-bethMSU Wrote:  as far as our tv contract; i'm not sure it falls all the way to cusa money, but it would certainly be re-worked down if cincinnati and connecticut leave. we'd stilll have temple, memphis and tulsa basketball which would still be a good basketball conference (at least at the top) ...

The problem with a BBall conference that is too top-heavy is there's only a few in-conference games of broader interest, and buying rights to the OOC games of a limited number of schools is a risky proposition. That's part of the appeal of a BBall-only add to balance the FB-only add of Navy, to increase the number of recognizable BBall names, and so increase the number of interesting matchups.

And for in-conference match-ups, for people watching because they recognize both names, the effect can be dramatic. Supposing all the marquee matchups happen home and away, with three recognized names, that is (2+1)*2=6; with four that is (3+2+1)*2=12, with five that is (4+3+2+1)*2=20.

The AAC has made efforts to replace the football component that it lost with Pitt, Syracuse, WVA, & Lville leaving especially with the additions of Temple, Navy, UCF, Houston & SMU on the football side of the equation.

The AAC now needs to add quality hoops/olympic sports programs to help makeup for the loss of the Catholic Programs and what Pitt, Lville & Syracuse brought on the hardwood. While developing another hybrid style conference is anathema to some; you will find few programs that are successful at both major collegiate sports to replace programs lost. Since Navy is a football only add and if Army joins they will be football only as well; it makes sense to add a hoops/Olympic sports program or 2 like VCU & Wichita who not only are proven commidities on the court but at the gate as well.

(04-10-2013 11:34 AM)Poliicious Wrote:  The AAC has made efforts to replace the football component that it lost with Pitt, Syracuse, WVA, & Lville leaving especially with the additions of Temple, Navy, UCF, Houston & SMU on the football side of the equation.

The AAC now needs to add quality hoops/olympic sports programs to help makeup for the loss of the Catholic Programs and what Pitt, Lville & Syracuse brought on the hardwood. While developing another hybrid style conference is anathema to some; you will find few programs that are successful at both major collegiate sports to replace programs lost. Since Navy is a football only add and if Army joins they will be football only as well; it makes sense to add a hoops/Olympic sports program or 2 like VCU & Wichita who not only are proven commidities on the court but at the gate as well.

And I would repeat that a major constraint placed on the Old Big East when it was facing a "raid or be raided" situation with the ACC was the imbalance between the two ~ the number of BBall schools in the conference made adding an all-sports member impractical. Pairing a FB-only add with a BBall-only (well, "Olympic Sports") add avoids running into that problem.

The reason MAC teams don't move up is not that the MAC is good. The reason is that those teams are bad. More precisely, they're unambitious. Ambitious teams don't stay in the MAC. UCF, Marshall, and Cincy were all in the MAC until their ambition level outgrew it. They weren't content to play the Big West champ in the Raisin Bowl (like the core MAC schools did for decades).

When a MAC team turns down another conference, that says nothing about the other conference and everything about the MAC team.

Andre, just a little perspective:

1): UCF was a " marriage of convenience" for a football only membership in the MAC....there was never really an expectation of al long term membership. Also, it is somewhat humorous to note that UCF went winless their last year in the MAC before "moving on up" to C-USA where they immediately turned into an upper division team.
2) Marshall did indeed have what you'd call "higher aspirations" when they moved to C-USA from their "second stint" in the MAC (where they had been dominant in football for most of their tenure from the late 90's until the move to C-USA although outside of football they were mostly uncompetitive in other men's sports and never made the NCAA b-ball tourney). At the time, C-USA had many more bowl affiliations, was typically a 2 team NCAA B-ball league, and had more of a "southern-based" footprint which was considered a better fit by the Herd. Since their move conference and bowl affiliations have dramatically changed, and C-USA has joined the MAC as mostly a one bid NCAA b-ball league. Marshall's once nationally recognized football program has become irrelevant in C-USA (there are many theories for this which I won't get into), but I think the vast majority of Herd fans would still say they enjoy C-USA and prefer it to the MAC.
3) UC was in the MAC in the late 40's and early 50's. After their "Sid Gillman" coaching era of the mid 50's their independent football program was completely irrevelant for the next 50 years so that's not much of an argument. The older posters among us probably realize that UC was a long-standing member of the MVC in hoops (as was Louisville) and was a two time national champion in the early 60's after being in the final four twice with Oscar Robertson in the late 50's. Until UC joined the Big East and really "upped their game", they were mostly dominated by MAC member Miami in football. No doubt UC's football program is now a force to be reckoned with.

(04-10-2013 10:23 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  

(04-10-2013 10:11 AM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  

(04-10-2013 12:43 AM)AntiG Wrote:  the AAC was already looking at UMass, Buffalo, Southern Miss and Northern Illinois. Army already has a standing invite and is not really a back-fill candidate.

Well, when you lose UConn and Cincy you will also lose your very modest $2 million TV deal and then the AAC will totally be CUSA with a $1 million TV deal which is right back to where you were the last few years when MAC teams declined your offers, so what makes you think the AAC can even lure MAC teams? You couldn't before, you think the AAC name slapped onto the same CUSA teams will fool us? The last time Cincy left, invitations were extended to MAC schools and we said no. Cincy will leave again, and we will say no regardless of your new name.

The Big East never invited any MAC programs. Show me otherwise if you believe they did.

BTW the Tulsa World says TV deal is actually worth 3.5M and was underreported.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/article.aspx/J...TLIN627987

Upham says Big East membership should be worth between $2.8 million and $3.5 million a year.

"The revenue boost we get will more than cover our fees over the five-year period," Upham said.

The current Big East recently concluded negotiations on new television contracts with ESPN/ABC and CBS. The reported figures from those deals suggest that each member school would receive slightly less than $2 million a year, but the terms of the new television contracts "have been understated," Aresco said.

"All I can say is that when people have talked about revenue in our conference, they have tended to understate it," Aresco told the Tulsa World. "We have two TV deals. We also have marketing rights that people have not figured in. A lot of conferences sell their marketing rights as part of their TV deal. We didn't. In addition, we have a lot of other sources of revenue in this conference (most notably, the $100 million from the departing Catholic universities).

You need to read between the lines on the spin. That is conference distributions, not JUST TV. TV revenues are not underreported at all. Now maybe AACK! has more non-TV revenue generating capacity than some of the other G5. But TV is only marginally better.

the expansion feelers from cusa to toledo and miami-ohio were, in fact, turned away - but there were no official invites as schools and conferences try to avoid publicly (officially) inviting or offering to hire anyone unless they have already agreed to say yes.

as far as our tv contract; i'm not sure it falls all the way to cusa money, but it would certainly be re-worked down if cincinnati and connecticut leave. we'd stilll have temple, memphis and tulsa basketball which would still be a good basketball conference (at least at the top) but it would be pretty hard to find anyone interested in the football games with ecu having no one of similar talent to play in conference. of course, we'd invite southern miss at that point, so football would get a small boost back to respectability. a southern miss - ecu game would draw, if nothing else.

sorry - i get a little down when the tournament ends.
[/quote]

Interesting, if true. Toledo has been pretty open about wanting to get into CUSA in the past.

(04-10-2013 01:33 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  The reason MAC teams don't move up is not that the MAC is good. The reason is that those teams are bad. More precisely, they're unambitious. Ambitious teams don't stay in the MAC. UCF, Marshall, and Cincy were all in the MAC until their ambition level outgrew it. They weren't content to play the Big West champ in the Raisin Bowl (like the core MAC schools did for decades).

When a MAC team turns down another conference, that says nothing about the other conference and everything about the MAC team.

Mr. 0-12,

How many BCS bowls have CUSA teams placed? - thats what I thought.

Mr. 0-12,

Which conference has had more Top 25 teams over the last decade? - thats what I thought

Mr. 0-12,

Which conference has beaten more ranked Top 25 teams over the last decade? - thats what I thought.

The answer to all is the MAC over the CUSA (AKA AAC) and thats when CUSA still had good teams. USM is now in the CUSA-Belt Conference. Not bad for a conference who is unambitious and not even trying..... vs a conference who is trying so hard and can't even keep up.

Have fun in CUSA.

.

(04-10-2013 02:45 PM)exCincy Kid Wrote:  Andre, just a little perspective:

2) Marshall did indeed have what you'd call "higher aspirations" when they moved to C-USA from their "second stint" in the MAC (where they had been dominant in football for most of their tenure from the late 90's until the move to C-USA although outside of football they were mostly uncompetitive in other men's sports and never made the NCAA b-ball tourney). At the time, C-USA had many more bowl affiliations, was typically a 2 team NCAA B-ball league, and had more of a "southern-based" footprint which was considered a better fit by the Herd. Since their move conference and bowl affiliations have dramatically changed, and C-USA has joined the MAC as mostly a one bid NCAA b-ball league. Marshall's once nationally recognized football program has become irrelevant in C-USA (there are many theories for this which I won't get into), but I think the vast majority of Herd fans would still say they enjoy C-USA and prefer it to the MAC.

As for this Marshall fan, you have it about right. CUSA, as it is now constructed, is probably even a little bit better fit for Marshall...for now. Still southern in geography, still more bowl affiliations (for now); and a chance to rebuild our brand after 8 years of mediocre performance in CUSA.

Comparison of number of ranked MAC teams vs ranked CUSA (now known as the AAC) heading into the conference championship over the last decade.

2003 Southern Miss
2004 #6 Louisville
2005 Tulsa 44-27
2006 Houston 34-20 Southern Miss
2007 Tulsa 25-44 UCF
2008 Tulsa 24-27 East Carolina
2009 #21 Houston 32-38 East Carolina
2010 SMU 7-17 #21 UCF
2011 #6 Houston 28-49 #24 Southern
2012 Tulsa 33-27 UCF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conference_...nship_Game

2003 #13 Miami 49 #20 Bowling Green 27
2004 Miami 27 Toledo 35
2005 Akron 31 Northern Illinois 30
2006 Ohio 10 Central Michigan 31
2007 Miami 10 Central Michigan 35
2008 Buffalo 42 #12 Ball State 24
2009 Ohio 10 Central Michigan 20
2010 Miami 26 #24 Northern Illinois 21
2011 Ohio 20 Northern Illinois 23
2012 #18 Kent State 37 #19 Northern Illinois 44
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_Championship_Game

- MAC has been ranked more times than CUSA and AAC teams
- MAC has beaten more ranked teams than CUSA and AAC teams
- MAC has been in a BCS bowl and CUSA never
- MAC has twice had both teams in the Championship game ranked, CUSA only once.
- How was that Championship Game attendance in Tulsa this year? Oh yeah, we beat you there too....

We beat more teams in one day in 2003, then CUSA does in an entire season or two.

Sept, 20, 2003:
Marshall (over No. 6 Kansas State in Manhattan), Northern Illinois (over No. 21 Alabama in Tuscaloosa) and Toledo (over No. 9 Pittsburgh at home).

unambitious??? compared to whom? CUSA? hahahahahahaha.

The MAC is better than the teams in CUSA and AAC.
.

The MAC isn't better wholesale nor are we better every year but it is true that it is better than many here give us credit for. In addition Andrewhere seems to have this irrational dislike of the MAC, which is even funnier considering the similarities in schools and situations there are between his school and ours. Heck I believe I saw a thread where he mocked MAC bowl games and then commented on USM making a Tangerine bowl (which he seemed to consider a good bowl game) which coincidentally enough WAS A MAC BOWL AT ONE POINT. In that bowl we had victories over such programs like Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina.

Apparently you can't just do well you have to be loud about it too in his book.

Though honestly lets not bash USM as most of the fans I have talked to have been cool about such things (I think they understand they have been and will be under similar situations as other non-aq schools)it is mostly just Andre.

(04-09-2013 11:33 PM)Dracorex Wrote:  so when Cincy and UCONN leave the AAC for other conferences who does the American choose out of CUSA or the MAC to take their place?

USM, UAB, Marshall, Rice, Ohio, Kent st? No Illinois, etc etc?

Rumor has it that CUSA would take Ark st and ULL if they lose 2 more teams. so if you want to

Would not want to go due to such little history and the like but wooo a mention.

lol

Buffalo - good grief.

I foresee stability for the next five-six years.

The Big Conferences really dont have much more reason to expand anymore. The Playoff money is set. The TV deals are done.

(04-10-2013 03:42 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Comparison of number of ranked MAC teams vs ranked CUSA (now known as the AAC) heading into the conference championship over the last decade.

2003 Southern Miss
2004 #6 Louisville
2005 Tulsa 44-27
2006 Houston 34-20 Southern Miss
2007 Tulsa 25-44 UCF
2008 Tulsa 24-27 East Carolina
2009 #21 Houston 32-38 East Carolina
2010 SMU 7-17 #21 UCF
2011 #6 Houston 28-49 #24 Southern
2012 Tulsa 33-27 UCF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conference_...nship_Game

2003 #13 Miami 49 #20 Bowling Green 27
2004 Miami 27 Toledo 35
2005 Akron 31 Northern Illinois 30
2006 Ohio 10 Central Michigan 31
2007 Miami 10 Central Michigan 35
2008 Buffalo 42 #12 Ball State 24
2009 Ohio 10 Central Michigan 20
2010 Miami 26 #24 Northern Illinois 21
2011 Ohio 20 Northern Illinois 23
2012 #18 Kent State 37 #19 Northern Illinois 44
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_Championship_Game

- MAC has been ranked more times than CUSA and AAC teams
- MAC has beaten more ranked teams than CUSA and AAC teams
- MAC has been in a BCS bowl and CUSA never
- MAC has twice had both teams in the Championship game ranked, CUSA only once.
- How was that Championship Game attendance in Tulsa this year? Oh yeah, we beat you there too....

We beat more teams in one day in 2003, then CUSA does in an entire season or two.

Sept, 20, 2003:
Marshall (over No. 6 Kansas State in Manhattan), Northern Illinois (over No. 21 Alabama in Tuscaloosa) and Toledo (over No. 9 Pittsburgh at home).

unambitious??? compared to whom? CUSA? hahahahahahaha.

The MAC is better than the teams in CUSA and AAC.
.

Tulsa played MAC teams in the GMAC Bowl after the 2007 & 2008 seasons.

2007 GMAC Bowl. Tulsa 63 Bowling Green 7
2008 GMAC Bowl Tulsa 45 Ball State 13

According to your post, Ball State was ranked #12 going into MAC Championship game. I know they were 12-1 going in to the GMAC Bowl.

(04-10-2013 01:33 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  The reason MAC teams don't move up is not that the MAC is good. The reason is that those teams are bad. More precisely, they're unambitious. Ambitious teams don't stay in the MAC. UCF, Marshall, and Cincy were all in the MAC until their ambition level outgrew it. They weren't content to play the Big West champ in the Raisin Bowl (like the core MAC schools did for decades).

When a MAC team turns down another conference, that says nothing about the other conference and everything about the MAC team.

oh is that it, they just don't "want it" hard enough? and a MAC team would only turn down a chance to move to another non AQ because they are either too stupid or too scared, right?

anybody who tries this hard to put down the MAC is overcompensating for something. It's just the MAC dude, relax.

(04-15-2013 03:13 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(04-10-2013 01:33 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  The reason MAC teams don't move up is not that the MAC is good. The reason is that those teams are bad. More precisely, they're unambitious. Ambitious teams don't stay in the MAC. UCF, Marshall, and Cincy were all in the MAC until their ambition level outgrew it. They weren't content to play the Big West champ in the Raisin Bowl (like the core MAC schools did for decades).

When a MAC team turns down another conference, that says nothing about the other conference and everything about the MAC team.

oh is that it, they just don't "want it" hard enough? and a MAC team would only turn down a chance to move to another non AQ because they are either too stupid or too scared, right?

anybody who tries this hard to put down the MAC is overcompensating for something. It's just the MAC dude, relax.

I think the MAC teams are happy where they are. There are a few MAC fans, mostly under the age of 20, who would like their schools to be more ambitious. But it's pretty pointless. You'd be happier just buying a Michigan T-shirt.

(04-10-2013 01:52 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  South West - If you add a 4th Texas school, Tulsa is on an island.
-----
Tulsa
SMU
Houston
UTep

UTSA would be picked up before UTEP.