(04-12-2013 01:09 PM)HerdZoned Wrote:  Sturat. Not many if any CUSA schools except us have any relationships with MAC schools. This would be like asking the PAC 12 to have a challenge or alliance with the ACC. Neither conferece has anything in common except they are a power conference. What does Washington have in common with say UVA or Oregon State have in common with new member Louisville.

True but if you think about it what did the Big 10 really have in common with the ACC in basketball outside of wanting to play another conference in basketball? Why play the PAC in football when they are so far away? Sometimes you just have to start something and see if it develops into something good. Granted I am not saying this has to be it but there is a history of at first strange combos for conference challenges.

(04-12-2013 08:42 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

CUSA-MAC Alliance (PPT Flash Movie)

I stopped watching 44 seconds into it when you claim that the MTN West and 'Murica 12 will dominate based on relative strength. Thats absolute BS based on ridiculous BCS mindset. Northern Illinois proved that voters will vote a team up based on wins alone even with a loss.

Lame.

Oh and I wouldnt have an issue with a CUSA/MAC alliance for scheduling purposes but Im not going to watch anymore of that video when is presented 40 seconds into it.

(04-12-2013 09:57 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Independent, third-party, unbiased, quantitative assessment of CUSA football, then and now... I didn't make this up...



...and...

Interesting numbers. Too bad they dont mean anything for this coming year or the year after that or the year after that or the year after that... etc etc etc...

(04-12-2013 01:11 PM)bladhmadh Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 09:40 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 09:39 AM)exCincy Kid Wrote:  Andre is talking about the "good ol' days" of C-USA when they had a great match-up with the MWC champ in the Liberty Bowl. Long gone now with the new conference "landscape" and most of the better C-USA football programs now departing or about to depart for AAC.

I know it, and maybe a MAC deal makes sense for Impostor CUSA. I'll put it like this, though: it doesn't make sense for any conference that includes USM. I'd prefer we drop football and focus on hoops if it's really come to that.

your such a 13yr old whiny *****

(04-13-2013 08:54 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  Interesting numbers. Too bad they dont mean anything for this coming year or the year after that or the year after that or the year after that... etc etc etc...

ATO, not to be argumentative, but isn't that a bit like saying that you ignore past history in choosing the mutual funds in your retirement portfolio... that none of that matters, and anything can happen?

History doesn't dictate what will happen, but conventionally speaking, people make better predictions with it than without it. Just because we don't like what history suggests is likely to happen, in my opinion, is not a good reason to ignore it.

Btw... cool graphic.

a 5 year average for WKU?

That's a worthless number. As are multiple other ones.

(04-13-2013 09:34 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(04-13-2013 08:54 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  Interesting numbers. Too bad they dont mean anything for this coming year or the year after that or the year after that or the year after that... etc etc etc...

ATO, not to be argumentative, but isn't that a bit like saying that you ignore past history in choosing the mutual funds in your retirement portfolio... that none of that matters, and anything can happen?

History doesn't dictate what will happen, but conventionally speaking, people make better predictions with it than without it. Just because we don't like what history suggests is likely to happen, in my opinion, is not a good reason to ignore it.

Btw... cool graphic.

It does if you're looking at anything prior to 2008. We're in a new economic era.

Just like we're about to enter a collegiate athletic era.

Mathenis... fwiw... I've stated previously that the normal distribution should eventually command that some number of the newbies will rise above their current status, and that as a conference we'll essentially pull even with MAC as a rule.

(04-13-2013 10:01 PM)mufanatehc Wrote:  It does if you're looking at anything prior to 2008. We're in a new economic era.

Just like we're about to enter a collegiate athletic era.

If only you'd been my investment advisor in 2009.

(04-13-2013 10:01 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Mathenis... fwiw... I've stated previously that the normal distribution should eventually command that some number of the newbies will rise above their current status, and that as a conference we'll essentially pull even with MAC as a rule.

Well, we haven't even been FBS for 5 years

(04-13-2013 10:17 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(04-13-2013 10:01 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  Mathenis... fwiw... I've stated previously that the normal distribution should eventually command that some number of the newbies will rise above their current status, and that as a conference we'll essentially pull even with MAC as a rule.

Well, we haven't even been FBS for 5 years

True, but that only means there's less history to look at... doesn't help predict success or failure, just means there's less evidence to go on either way.

WKU has some positives going for it in the short term, but also some fundamental negatives that could be too great for long-term success... fortunately for the Hilltoppers, there is no newbie that comes into CUSA with very much reason to suspect long-term success... and yet some number of them will, at minimum, rise to the middle and may even rise to the top.

(04-12-2013 12:54 PM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 12:37 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  I watched the slide show and would support a similar system that included all 5 of the conferences currently left out except for 1 spot among them in the new bcs system.

It would be better to take the top team from each of the 5 and have that playoff. The 2 lowest seeds would have a play-in game to get to the field of 4 or just take the top 4 champs. The regular season schedules could be modified as suggested in the slide show so that everyone ends up playing 12 games except the 2 finalists who would play 13. Better to decide who goes to the "big bowl" thru a mini playoff than to let a committee decide it.

I'm all for a playoff if you can make it happen. Something like you're describing would be optimal. I'm just proposing something that might be more in our control to make happen.

I got the below information off the realignment boards. It suggests that the power conferences are contemplating eventually separating from the mid-majors regarding their proposed playoff. I thought C-USA fans might be interested because the topic is similar to what has been discussed in this thread:

"Although the notion that big football schools might eventually break away from the NCAA is not new, the overwhelming sense within the industry is that some sort of major change is on the horizon. Whether that change includes the NCAA completely, in part or not at all is now talked about openly and frequently among administrators, according to conversations with more than two dozen high-ranking college athletics officials across a spectrum of Division I conferences...it was even broached directly to NCAA president Mark Emmert at an athletics directors convention in September 2011....

According to a person in the room, whose version of events was confirmed by two others, one athletics director asked Emmert directly whether it was time for the top football conferences to split from the lower-tier conferences of the Football Bowl Subdivision, and perhaps even away from the NCAA altogether."

(04-21-2013 07:45 PM)orangefan Wrote:  @DanWolken: As BCS celebrates playoff this week, talk about NCAA breakaway now out in the open http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...t/2097115/