(01-08-2015 12:05 AM)10miners Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 11:43 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  How does C-USA benefit from additional expansion?

its either that or drop some of the dead weight unless some these schools start scheduling better. How hard is it to have a decent basketball schedule? With 14 teams its sad that only 3 schools are in the top 100 in RPI. Alantic 10 has the same amount as C-USA and they have 7 schools with a RPI of under 100.

I'd love to see incentives/penalties tied to MBB scheduling. There has to be some sort of plan if the league wants to improve overall.

(01-07-2015 07:15 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  Ohio U or nothing.

I don't see any MAC school that have been there over 60 years moving. There are 3 MAC schools that I think would listen, those being NIU, Akron and Buffalo. I would like NIU and could support Akron. But Buffalo no way. The MACsters have been telling everyone for years that UB is a sleeping giant. Well since 1999 the giant woke up 1 time, went and got a glass of water and went back to sleep.

(01-07-2015 10:02 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 08:43 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 07:15 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  Ohio U or nothing.

Ohio U doesn't want anything to do with CUSA. They want to stay in a bus league.

Not what I am hearing...

You also heard that there was a "major" airport coming to Athens. Most likely in one of your big marijuana stupors.

(01-08-2015 12:05 AM)10miners Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 11:43 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  How does C-USA benefit from additional expansion?

its either that or drop some of the dead weight unless some these schools start scheduling better. How hard is it to have a decent basketball schedule? With 14 teams its sad that only 3 schools are in the top 100 in RPI. Alantic 10 has the same amount as C-USA and they have 7 schools with a RPI of under 100.

there is quite a bit of urban recruiting that gives the NE quad a huge advantage.....

couple that with the media coverage and population center......

well, it's not that hard to understand....

(01-08-2015 12:19 AM)HerdZoned Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 07:15 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  Ohio U or nothing.

I don't see any MAC school that have been there over 60 years moving. There are 3 MAC schools that I think would listen, those being NIU, Akron and Buffalo. I would like NIU and could support Akron. But Buffalo no way. The MACsters have been telling everyone for years that UB is a sleeping giant. Well since 1999 the giant woke up 1 time, went and got a glass of water and went back to sleep.

(01-07-2015 10:02 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 08:43 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 07:15 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  Ohio U or nothing.

Ohio U doesn't want anything to do with CUSA. They want to stay in a bus league.

Not what I am hearing...

You also heard that there was a "major" airport coming to Athens. Most likely in one of your big marijuana stupors.

im talking about scheduling not recruiting..

I disagree with expanding to 16 teams. How did that work for WAC?

(01-07-2015 11:22 PM)10miners Wrote:  here is another crazy idea what about giving BYU a call for basketball only and adding North Dakota St for football and Basketball?

NDSU adds a lot of travel unless for fb only. BYU for basketball? Why would they leave their geographically close WCC which is ranked 10th in rpi for a far away league with a worse rpi?

(01-08-2015 02:55 AM)David Krysakowski Wrote:  I disagree with expanding to 16 teams. How did that work for WAC?

Totally different situation. Apples to oranges.

The WAC at 16 had no way to accommodate the rivalries with its pod system or with a geographically aligned division system.

C-USA can easily accommodate 2 divisions of 8 on a geographic basis. It could create a situation where travel for minor sports would be much more affordable, add to the footprint for media and perception, and if the right schools are added, basketball and football can both be improved.

(01-08-2015 08:21 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(01-08-2015 02:55 AM)David Krysakowski Wrote:  I disagree with expanding to 16 teams. How did that work for WAC?

Totally different situation. Apples to oranges.

The WAC at 16 had no way to accommodate the rivalries with its pod system or with a geographically aligned division system.

C-USA can easily accommodate 2 divisions of 8 on a geographic basis. It could create a situation where travel for minor sports would be much more affordable, add to the footprint for media and perception, and if the right schools are added, basketball and football can both be improved.

Agree with MIW that the Super-WAC of 20 years ago is not comparable with C-USA of today. Even so, I think the burden of proof is on the pro-expansion side to demonstrate that adding new members would actually improve the bottom line for the current members. That might be true, but also might not.

No to FGCU. We have enough Florida schools and Im not even close to convinced they will maintain the level of quality program they've had recently. FAU and FIU are much better. I suspect FGCU would be short term gain for long term pain. The only schools I would consider that are even possibilities are Army, Ark St., So Alabama, JMU, UMass and maybe GSU or App St. If the AAC falls apart bringing back ECU would be a no brainer.

(01-08-2015 08:21 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(01-08-2015 02:55 AM)David Krysakowski Wrote:  I disagree with expanding to 16 teams. How did that work for WAC?

Totally different situation. Apples to oranges.

The WAC at 16 had no way to accommodate the rivalries with its pod system or with a geographically aligned division system.

C-USA can easily accommodate 2 divisions of 8 on a geographic basis. It could create a situation where travel for minor sports would be much more affordable, add to the footprint for media and perception, and if the right schools are added, basketball and football can both be improved.

Agree.

In a few years when Wichita State's tournament shares start to dwindle (assuming they don't go on another huge run in the tournament), I'd like the conference to gauge their interest in joining. There is no way they join right now with all the tournament shares they have in the MVC. I don't know who would be worth an invite in the east though. VCU is really the only program I'd have much interest in, but they're not going to be interested. UAB would be fine I suppose. If you can snag UMass or Ohio as a full member, then that'd be a pretty decent 16 team basketball conference.

If Ohio joins, it will nice to hear our fight school from another school....BOth have same fight song 'Stand up and Cheer'...

The only schools that move the needle for me are UMass and NIU....and maybe Ohio. Other than those, the impression would be lateral at best.

(01-08-2015 09:49 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(01-08-2015 08:21 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(01-08-2015 02:55 AM)David Krysakowski Wrote:  I disagree with expanding to 16 teams. How did that work for WAC?

Totally different situation. Apples to oranges.

The WAC at 16 had no way to accommodate the rivalries with its pod system or with a geographically aligned division system.

C-USA can easily accommodate 2 divisions of 8 on a geographic basis. It could create a situation where travel for minor sports would be much more affordable, add to the footprint for media and perception, and if the right schools are added, basketball and football can both be improved.

Agree.

In a few years when Wichita State's tournament shares start to dwindle (assuming they don't go on another huge run in the tournament), I'd like the conference to gauge their interest in joining. There is no way they join right now with all the tournament shares they have in the MVC. I don't know who would be worth an invite in the east though. VCU is really the only program I'd have much interest in, but they're not going to be interested. UAB would be fine I suppose. If you can snag UMass or Ohio as a full member, then that'd be a pretty decent 16 team basketball conference.

A basketball only school is likely not in the cards. For a new all sports member it might be worth it because C-USA has other income to compensate. A new basketball only member would only see a small portion of conference distributions because football tv contract and cfp money are most of it and the ncaa credits Wichita St gets in the Valley may be more than what they would get in C-USA. Not sure.

We need to improve our hoops perception, no doubt about it; but football drives the bus. Why would a Wichita St. or VCU abandon tons of hoops credits to make an expensive lateral hoops move? They wouldn't unless they wanted to play high level football; and there's been no noise around that. So a high level hoops progam won't move to C-USA....so any new theoretical addition needs to be focused on generating more football revenue or increasing the conferences profile.

We were fortunate to get Charlotte and ODU for hoops but that well now appears dry.

(01-07-2015 10:02 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 08:43 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  

(01-07-2015 07:15 PM)MU ATO Wrote:  Ohio U or nothing.

Ohio U doesn't want anything to do with CUSA. They want to stay in a bus league.

Not what I am hearing...

I heard that there were some "Ohio" based Mac schools expressing interest with CUSA but did not get the impression that Ohio was one of them. I could be wrong or it could be that something has recently changed that I'm not aware of. I'd be okay with Ohio but always got the impression that they enjoyed the short trips that the Mac was able to offer geographically. I do find it odd that neither Marshall or Ohio has announced a football or basketball series extension considering we have played each other for many years in both sports. Maybe there is something to it.

(01-08-2015 10:45 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  We need to improve our hoops perception, no doubt about it; but football drives the bus. Why would a Wichita St. or VCU abandon tons of hoops credits to make an expensive lateral hoops move? They wouldn't unless they wanted to play high level football; and there's been no noise around that. So a high level hoops progam won't move to C-USA....so any new theoretical addition needs to be focused on generating more football revenue or increasing the conferences profile.

We were fortunate to get Charlotte and ODU for hoops but that well now appears dry.

There is very likely no interest, but those credits don't last forever. Realistically though, no self respecting basketball school would join this conference, especially not while there are schools in this conference with A-Sun level facilities and support.

I would be disinclined to expand beyond where we already are for basketball. As noted, we're unlikely to get anyone of significance to raise our BB profile. Expanding the league means we would play even fewer teams home-and-home. At that point, you really don't have a conference, you have a standing agreement to play the same teams every year. It's tough to build any rivalries.

I would like to keep the league as it is. If we can keep UAB, great. If not, then a 13 team league is certainly workable...maybe even preferable. We would play every team at least once, plus 6 teams home-and-home (assuming the same 18 game conference schedule).

(01-08-2015 10:45 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  We need to improve our hoops perception, no doubt about it; but football drives the bus. Why would a Wichita St. or VCU abandon tons of hoops credits to make an expensive lateral hoops move? They wouldn't unless they wanted to play high level football; and there's been no noise around that. So a high level hoops progam won't move to C-USA....so any new theoretical addition needs to be focused on generating more football revenue or increasing the conferences profile.

We were fortunate to get Charlotte and ODU for hoops but that well now appears dry.

To your post, here is something to think about: any market available from this list?

The Top 25 television markets for college football
Posted on August 29, 2012 11:00 am by John Clay

ESPN’s public relations department has put out a release ranking the top 25 college football markets by viewership.

The top 25 college football markets for 2011:

No. 1 Birmingham: 5.9 rating
No. 2 Oklahoma City: 4.3 rating
No. 2 Columbus: 4.3 rating
No. 4 Greenville: 4.1 rating
No. 5 New Orleans: 3.4 rating
No. 5 Atlanta: 3.4 rating
No. 7 Jacksonville: 3.3 rating
No. 7 Tulsa: 3.3 rating
No. 9 Las Vegas: 3.2 rating
No. 10 Knoxville: 3.0 rating
No. 11 Dayton: 2.8 rating
No. 12 Greensboro: 2.7 rating
No. 12 Austin: 2.7 rating
No. 12 Charlotte: 2.7 rating
No. 12 Fort Myers: 2.7 rating
No. 16 Pittsburgh: 2.5 rating
No. 16 Nashville: 2.5 rating
No. 16 Norfolk: 2.5 rating
No. 16 Memphis: 2.5
No. 20 Cleveland: 2.4
No. 21 Orlando: 2.3
No. 22 Raleigh-Durham: 2.2
No. 22 West Palm Beach: 2.2
No. 22 Detroit: 2.2
No. 25 Cincinnati: 2.0
No. 25 Richmond: 2.0
No. 25 Portland 2.0
No. 25 Kansas City: 2.0
No. 25 Tampa-St. Petersburg: 2.0

edit: add Tell your grievances to John Clay at ESPN. Source: http://johnclay.bloginky.com/2012/08/29/...-football/

(01-08-2015 01:05 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(01-08-2015 10:45 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  We need to improve our hoops perception, no doubt about it; but football drives the bus. Why would a Wichita St. or VCU abandon tons of hoops credits to make an expensive lateral hoops move? They wouldn't unless they wanted to play high level football; and there's been no noise around that. So a high level hoops progam won't move to C-USA....so any new theoretical addition needs to be focused on generating more football revenue or increasing the conferences profile.

We were fortunate to get Charlotte and ODU for hoops but that well now appears dry.

To your post, here is something to think about: any market available from this list?

The Top 25 television markets for college football
Posted on August 29, 2012 11:00 am by John Clay

ESPN’s public relations department has put out a release ranking the top 25 college football markets by viewership.

The top 25 college football markets for 2011:

No. 1 Birmingham: 5.9 rating
No. 2 Oklahoma City: 4.3 rating
No. 2 Columbus: 4.3 rating
No. 4 Greenville: 4.1 rating
No. 5 New Orleans: 3.4 rating
No. 5 Atlanta: 3.4 rating
No. 7 Jacksonville: 3.3 rating
No. 7 Tulsa: 3.3 rating
No. 9 Las Vegas: 3.2 rating
No. 10 Knoxville: 3.0 rating
No. 11 Dayton: 2.8 rating
No. 12 Greensboro: 2.7 rating
No. 12 Austin: 2.7 rating
No. 12 Charlotte: 2.7 rating
No. 12 Fort Myers: 2.7 rating
No. 16 Pittsburgh: 2.5 rating
No. 16 Nashville: 2.5 rating
No. 16 Norfolk: 2.5 rating
No. 16 Memphis: 2.5
No. 20 Cleveland: 2.4
No. 21 Orlando: 2.3
No. 22 Raleigh-Durham: 2.2
No. 22 West Palm Beach: 2.2
No. 22 Detroit: 2.2
No. 25 Cincinnati: 2.0
No. 25 Richmond: 2.0
No. 25 Portland 2.0
No. 25 Kansas City: 2.0
No. 25 Tampa-St. Petersburg: 2.0

Interesting.

No.5 Atlanta. Isn't that where Georgia State is from?