CUSA-MAC Alliance (PPT Flash Movie)

No; that can never happen. Our philosophies and goals are too different. I view the MAC as a graveyard for athletic programs and would be embarrassed if USM even played at a MAC team, even once.

I understand the apprehension. Believe me, I do. But watch the PPT and use your left brain on this one.

(04-12-2013 08:51 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  I understand the apprehension. Believe me, I do. But watch the PPT and use your left brain on this one.

If there wasn't enough money to make it work with the MWC, then there won't be with the MAC. They're a lesser league in a constricted footprint dominated by the B1G.

(04-12-2013 09:09 AM)mufanatehc Wrote:  If there wasn't enough money to make it work with the MWC, then there won't be with the MAC. They're a lesser league in a constricted footprint dominated by the B1G.

1. We never were told any of the specifics of the nature of the alliance that Thompson and Banowsky had intended, other than that they advocated that there was additional TV revenue to be had. What's proposed here may or may not be what they had in-mind.

As such, your assertion that there "wasn't enough money to make it work" is built on a series of presumptions you've made.

2. I'd like to see how you make the case that "they're a lesser league." That's absurd.

3. What Group of Five conference doesn't exist in a geographic area dominated by one of the power conferences?

Again... dismiss the emotion, understand precisely what is being proposed, and use your left brain on this. This can only help both conferences to have a better shot at the BCS berth, and that is where the big money is. History says that to not do so is to, in most years, yield that berth and that money to either the AAC or MWC.

(04-12-2013 08:42 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

CUSA-MAC Alliance (PPT Flash Movie)

Waste of time to even talk about it. The new revenue sharing from the BCS is not setup in a way to make it worthwhile. The majority of those schools in the Mac have no real commitment to athletics or getting better anyway. Wast of time. We have great schools that are wanting to get better and investing in facilities right here in CUSA. There is not one current member in CUSA that I would trade for another Mac member.

I have to admit, it's an intriguing idea. What's wrong with two G5 conferences coming up with a unique plan that enhances interest? Doubt it will ever happen, but it is intriguing.

(04-12-2013 09:25 AM)Cnelson203 Wrote:  I have to admit, it's an intriguing idea. What's wrong with two G5 conferences coming up with a unique plan that enhances interest? Doubt it will ever happen, but it is intriguing.

What's wrong is twenty years of sending a champion to the California Raisin Bowl versus twenty years of sending a champion to the Liberty Bowl.

(04-12-2013 09:24 AM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  Waste of time to even talk about it. The new revenue sharing from the BCS is not setup in a way to make it worthwhile. The majority of those schools in the Mac have no real commitment to athletics or getting better anyway. Wast of time. We have great schools that are wanting to get better and investing in facilities right here in CUSA. There is not one current member in CUSA that I would trade for another Mac member.

Revenue sharing... that's correct.

But that ignores the one other potential big pay day for Group of Five schools, which is the actual revenue from the BCS bowl itself.

Leave that BCS berth to your AAC and MWC friends, and watch the chasm between us and them grow and grow and grow.

To your own folly.

By the way, don't make the mistake of failing to watch the PPT to understand the nature of the alliance being proposed... "alliance" does NOT mean "merger," at least in this case.

(04-12-2013 09:29 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  What's wrong is twenty years of sending a champion to the California Raisin Bowl versus twenty years of sending a champion to the Liberty Bowl.

Andre, you lost me... it sounds like you're commenting on something different than what is being proposed.

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.

(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.

I hear 'ya, Andre. USM is a great program and does deserve better......

(04-12-2013 09:33 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 09:29 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  What's wrong is twenty years of sending a champion to the California Raisin Bowl versus twenty years of sending a champion to the Liberty Bowl.

Andre, you lost me... it sounds like you're commenting on something different than what is being proposed.

I'm referring to the fact that CUSA has traditionally had a higher place in the overall pecking order and we need to guard that position.

CUSA was perceived as better than at least 3 existing I-A conferences the minute it was created (MAC, Big West, and WAC), largely because of the Liberty Bowl tie-in. The Liberty Bowl is a much more prestigious bowl than any bowl the MAC has ever been associated with. The schools in CUSA were affiliated with the Liberty as early as 1992... the "Liberty Bowl Alliance" was a precursor to CUSA, and included USM, ECU, Louisville, Cincy, etc.

Several of those schools fit the MAC footprint, and could have been in the MAC had they wanted to, but their budget, ambition, and performance were just all way too good for the MAC.

That's the history of CUSA... it was built to be a major league pretender. The MAC has been sort of like AAA baseball from day one. The ambition's not there.

Setting aside value judgments, why would either league want to be involved with the other? Why would a nice regional league like the MAC want to play footsie with a bunch of overambitious CUSA schools with inflated egos? Why would CUSA want to pollute itself by affiliating with schools that seem to have been trapped in the same place for 60 years?

(04-12-2013 09:45 AM)exCincy Kid Wrote:  I hear 'ya, Andre. USM is a great program and does deserve better......

Thanks. It's our own damned fault, though. We had an interim president and an AD on a one-year contract throughout the most recent moves. The whole time, we also had a contingent of fans loudly insisting that CUSA was good enough, and that most USM fans didn't know the difference between UCF and FIU anyway.

I can't believe all of the advantages we've squandered since CUSA was founded.

Independent, third-party, unbiased, quantitative assessment of CUSA football, then and now... I didn't make this up...



...and...

(04-12-2013 09:48 AM)AndreWhere Wrote:  Setting aside value judgments, why would either league want to be involved with the other? Why would a nice regional league like the MAC want to play footsie with a bunch of overambitious CUSA schools with inflated egos? Why would CUSA want to pollute itself by affiliating with schools that seem to have been trapped in the same place for 60 years?

I think the PPT addresses that.

But in sum...

Money.

(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...

I never claimed we were great at football. Read what I posted and respond to that. Many CUSA teams, past and present, have sucked at football for prolonged periods of time. It didn't keep us from getting a better bowl tie-in than the MAC, WAC, or Big West, and keeping it from 1993 (or so) to present.

And I'd take issue with any ranking that puts LA Tech above USM. LA Tech hasn't beaten us in football since 1991. USM has won 3 of the last 4 against Tech and 8 of the last 9. Tech is an astonishingly overrated program... I have devoted a lot of consideration to how they got into CUSA and I just draw a blank. It's one of those mysteries of the universe.

I re-read it.

Still not seeing how what I said was less than responsive to your points.

As far as "guarding our position," how do you do that when you look at the reality of those 5-year averages? Spin can only accomplish so much.

The explanation about La Tech? I can only imagine that (a) So Miss' 2012 debacle took them down pretty significantly, and (b) La Tech otherwise has competed well against quality competition... just has a problem beating So Miss for whatever reason.

I do sympathize with your overall sentiment, though. It is what it is. Time to make lemonade, though.

(04-12-2013 09:24 AM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 08:42 AM)_sturt_ Wrote:  

CUSA-MAC Alliance (PPT Flash Movie)

Waste of time to even talk about it. The new revenue sharing from the BCS is not setup in a way to make it worthwhile. The majority of those schools in the Mac have no real commitment to athletics or getting better anyway. Wast of time. We have great schools that are wanting to get better and investing in facilities right here in CUSA. There is not one current member in CUSA that I would trade for another Mac member.

Most of the MAC schools are improving their facilities, but don't let facts get in the way of your argument.

CUSA used to be better than the MAC in football. I doubt that it is now. It could be again if the newbies pan out, but right now it isn't.

Boise State played @ Toledo (as part of a 1-1). But USM is too good to play at a MAC school?