[/quote]

USM will jump ship immediately prior to any vote on that if there is any indication it might be approved.
[/quote]

There are 4 schools of thought at play, that would dictate such a decision. Their probabilities should be weighed accordingly.

1.) The probability that a "P5" invite comes. In this instance a 10 million exit fee will not dissuade them and USM would be free to go.

2.) The probability that another "G5" invite comes to USM. If this happens, the exit fee may impede USM leaving. However, we can all agree that the ADVANTAGES of being in one of those other conferences has been extraordinarily MINIMIZED.

3.) The probability that CUSA loses a program, other than USM. If we have no exit fee, and a program like UTEP, Charlotte, or ODU is poached after CUSA invested years after moving them up from fbs (to perhaps see them turn into a UCF), the result would be that USM is left again in a conference without a strong team(s) that is/are bringing attention to CUSA.

4.) Everyone stays. Everyone builds. Seems sound to me. Unless you don't believe in the potential of the current CUSA programs to stabilize and start making strides, this sounds like the only scenario that our fate is in our own hands.

#1 is a no brainer. #2 is a minimal gain. #3 is disaster (the proverbial ant hill getting stepped on.... again)

You think things can't get any worse? #3 has the much higher likelihood. If you think otherwise, you're smoking some good stuff.

#4 puts the power in our own hands.
[/quote]

There is only ONE school of thought at USM and that concerns moving back into a league with our peers which would never happen if we weld ourselves to a bunch of swelled heads. Cusa is now comprised of a pack of newbies who are only here because the original group is gone, not because of their history, respect, etc but simply due to the panic mode of our commissioner as he grabbed whoever was willing to move in at the time. All of the newbies left one league or another to get here and I venture to say that another could be formed or we could join one from schools such as ULL, Ark State, S Ala, etc that would easily rival this hodgepodge of cusa teams with considerably less travel. That could suit USM just fine until our ducks are in a row (basketball facility).

Terrible idea.

I think 4 or 5 million would be reasonable.The conference can use every dime.Schools changing would find a way to pay. An exit fee at those levels would be safe from a court challenge.It is just the cost of doing business.The conference has to protect itself to some extent.Do it now.

I assume that the underlying reason for the OP's opinion was for stability and giving C-USA a chance to develop into a consistently high performing conference. If so, I get the sentiment, but I don't think there would be any interest in raising exit fees, even if (as AttackCoog suggests) there was some sort of monetary nexus in coupling a raised fee with damages.

I really like this conference as it is. I think most member fans do and see the potential. If we perform on the field, courts, diamonds, pools and tracks, and if all of our schools raise their personal bar in all sports (especially the money sports of FB and BB), then no team has any incentive in moving to another G5 conference. We demonstrated last year that we can compete with other G5 conferences, not through talk -- which is cheap -- but through performance, particularly against other G5 schools.

So I get the OPs sentiment, but stability will come through performance. I don't think one school in our conference has reached its full potential in all sports. Gaining on that goal is the golden ticket, I think.

(07-12-2015 03:15 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  Terrible idea.

How is it a terrible idea? If it saves the CUSA from getting poached, thereby making the MWC or MAC more vulnerable, that can only be a good thing.

The point is: With CUSA handing out fbs golden tickets left and right, there very well should be a stopgap for any further damage incurred from poaching, after we've pooled our resources into a long-term plan for CUSA.

Otherwise, the great majority of our programs will be back at square 1 again in a few years.

(07-12-2015 03:51 PM)Cnelson203 Wrote:  I assume that the underlying reason for the OP's opinion was for stability and giving C-USA a chance to develop into a consistently high performing conference. If so, I get the sentiment, but I don't think there would be any interest in raising exit fees, even if (as AttackCoog suggests) there was some sort of monetary nexus in coupling a raised fee with damages.

I really like this conference as it is. I think most member fans do and see the potential. If we perform on the field, courts, diamonds, pools and tracks, and if all of our schools raise their personal bar in all sports (especially the money sports of FB and BB), then no team has any incentive in moving to another G5 conference. We demonstrated last year that we can compete with other G5 conferences, not through talk -- which is cheap -- but through performance, particularly against other G5 schools.

So I get the OPs sentiment, but stability will come through performance. I don't think one school in our conference has reached its full potential in all sports. Gaining on that goal is the golden ticket, I think.

I agree... but I wish I was as sure that our performance would bring stability. After all, we were ranked ahead of the AAC in football last year...
But it seems like the USM poster in this thread isn't the only one pining for the AAC.

I simply don't see a reason why we shouldn't at least get a big payday if the Big 12 were to set off the dominoes again. IMO, we should protect ourselves against just that. We have too much to lose after the drastic choices we made to BUILD 3 new programs.

It's not like I'm calling for a Grant of Rights.

(07-12-2015 03:04 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  There is only ONE school of thought at USM and that concerns moving back into a league with our peers which would never happen if we weld ourselves to a bunch of swelled heads. Cusa is now comprised of a pack of newbies who are only here because the original group is gone, not because of their history, respect, etc but simply due to the panic mode of our commissioner as he grabbed whoever was willing to move in at the time. All of the newbies left one league or another to get here and I venture to say that another could be formed or we could join one from schools such as ULL, Ark State, S Ala, etc that would easily rival this hodgepodge of cusa teams with considerably less travel. That could suit USM just fine until our ducks are in a row (basketball facility).

Rice is the only school in the current group that fell down to get here in CUSA. All the other schools appear to have moved up to get in CUSA.

The fault is Rice's for its lack of attention to its programs for more than 40 years. We are a lesson to others of what NOT to do. Only recently have our leaders seemed to truly begin to grasp this, yet we still are trying to get by with shortcuts instead of going all in in many ways. Until Rice decides it is fully in or fully out this will likely continue.

I feel for USM and what has happened to them, because for years they built a strong program with a loyal following. They are victim to some of the same thing that hurts Boise State no matter what bthey do: their geographic location makes them redundant/an outlier to most worthy conferences. But there's no doubt to me, despite the recent missteps, that USM gets college sports.

Rice still tries to half-a## it instead of ponying up to pay the real people to lead it. Well, we finally seemed to have figured out you need a real coach in basketball, and baseball we got one everyone else thought was washed up but had decades more life in him. He has an attitude that has served Rice well, and won us a National Baseball Championship, and national recognition, something few thought possible at Rice. Our new basketball coach seems to be the real deal, and already highly coveted. Hopefully that will get that program on the national stage soon. We have a long, long way to go for football leadership. I imagine we're waiting to complete more Stadium renovations and the feeling is it's just as good as anything until we do, as football is viewed by some as much harder to overhaul, and will cost less to keep these guys in place until infrastructure is done. I'm not a fan of waiting around in football with mediocrity, but after the renovations in a few years I am hopeful that then perhaps we can get a more qualified candidate interested.

(07-12-2015 03:04 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  There is only ONE school of thought at USM and that concerns moving back into a league with our peers

Sadly, the only metrics that matter in 2015 are finances and facilities, and to that end, we already are in a league with our peers. The schools to which you're referring would be more accurately called "our former peers."

BoKnows is making a good point, but the exit fee that he proposes isn't realistic. School presidents wouldn't aprove it. I do, however, believe a $4 million dollar exit fee is reasonable. It's just enough to disuade one of our members from jumping to another G5, but low enough to easily pay if a P5 invite happens.

(07-12-2015 04:16 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 03:04 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  There is only ONE school of thought at USM and that concerns moving back into a league with our peers

Sadly, the only metrics that matter in 2015 are finances and facilities, and to that end, we already are in a league with our peers. The schools to which you're referring would be more accurately called "our former peers."

Bingo, we have the winner. I haven't bothered to look up the athletic budget of USM, but I suspect it's well below the average of its former peers in the AAC. I do recall that there are a few schools in the current C-USA who have athletic budgets similar to the average AAC budget though I think most of them are lacking in equivalent facilities, and some lack history at the FBS level. Based on what other USM posters have said about USM's facilities, the school lacks in both budget and facilities.

I might add to HarborPointe's post that I believe the hard times suffered by USM at the very time its former peers moved on also played a role in the overall process of where the school finds itself today. The reasons for those hard times have been debated at length here, and certainly athletic budgets and facilities are contributing factors.

I can understand the frustration of some fans that feel left behind. If we had long history of playing in the SWC and ended up in C-USA, I'd be upset too. If we had the success Southern Miss enjoyed for decades, and got left out when more recent additions moved on, that would also irritate me.

I endure a different kind of frustration. North Texas has always had to scrap for everything we have. Remember, we share our media market with TCU and SMU (DFW: the only media market with 3 FBS college football programs). Even our mascot's name is Scrappy. Our entire football existence has been a struggle. A slow and troublesome climb up the college football landscape. Being a Mean Green fan has never been for the "faint of heart". We have been conditioned to find opportunity in even the bleakest of situations. We are a not just survivors, we are survivalists. We can prosper in conditions that would be the demise of others. I have been told by fans of other programs that my optimistic opinions of C-USA's future are excessive, but the road I see ahead for our conference is the nicest road North Texas has ever traveled. I believe this line-up in C-USA West is special and will grow to be a real force within the G5. I know North Texas and I believe UTSA, and LA Tech will commit the kind of money and resources to athletics that will ensure the future success of this division. One day in not too distant future I believe both Rice and USM will be glad they got stuck in this new configuration of C-USA West.

(07-12-2015 01:38 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 01:13 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 01:10 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 01:07 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 10:36 AM)SigNuTopper Wrote:  And nobody is going to jump ship to the AAC anymore now that they know that they aren't a "Power" conference.

I bet every team in the conference would jump at an invite from the AAC in its current configuration.

And I wouldn't understand why from a money and instability perspective.

Nor would I. I've made the same argument re moving from the Belt to C-USA but am usually met with incredulous looks of horror from both sides of the fence.

Some might "jump," others would "take a look" but I don't think it would be any better really, considering the main reason they'd want to look at additional schools is them losing UConn and/or Cincinnati, or maybe UCF. Without those first two schools, the AAC is just an even more spread out version of CUSA, and most people understand this.

Many of the other CUSA schools are better organized and more competitive than Rice.

The Western part of CUSA is just as good as any other G5 option for Rice, and better in terms of travel. If we're honest, most of the fans of our small school aren't all that excited about playing the schools in this conference vs the old SWC schools we used to play, but it is what it is. I imagine many fans from other CUSA schools couldn't really give a hoot about playing Rice either. It's not like Rice has been really good or nationally relevant at any major sport but Baseball over the last few decades. Hopefully that will change soon with Men's Basketball this season or next.

We've achieved a level of mediocrity that is somewhat of an improvement for us, but we're far from being a Marshall, LaTECH or even a WKU-type power. We're highly beatable and largely unimpressive in the other major sports, recently padding our record against the lowest-skilled teams so we can tout our "success," while never beating a team above the bottom 70 regular season and getting blown out by most real competitive teams, let alone the name P5 schools we play occasionally.

But we are at least taking advantage of all the additional "warm-up" bowls that have been added to the already bloated postseason schedule that didn't exist years ago against other G5-level schools.

While these games certainly don't generate anywhere near the level of interest of the major bowls we used to be eligible for in previous conferences, at least we do go play a game after the season nowadays, as do most of the rest of schools these days (about two-thirds of all schools give or take). Personally I preferred a bowl schedule where G5 level schools played P5s regularly; where every bowl game meant something more because there were less of them and you had to have won 8 or 9 against a good schedule, but things have been diluted in the interest of filling TV time slots. I think 30 bowls is the most I'd like to see, perhaps even 25, but we have far too many games these days that are meaningless just so coaches can pad their resumes and get raises they probably don't deserve.

+ 1,000

Having been in a conference where half of the members left (and Rice was one of them), I would be completely in favor of a $10M exit fee. The schools in the AAC are no better off than they were in CUSA. If a P5 grabs an AAC team or two then having more CUSA programs move to the AAC for better "perceived" value would only hurt CUSA. If we want stability while we all strengthen our programs, then we have got to stop willingly playing underling to the AAC.

(07-12-2015 07:28 PM)DogsWin1 Wrote:  Having been in a conference where half of the members left (and Rice was one of them), I would be completely in favor of a $10M exit fee. The schools in the AAC are no better off than they were in CUSA. If a P5 grabs an AAC team or two then having more CUSA programs move to the AAC for better "perceived" value would only hurt CUSA. If we want stability while we all strengthen our programs, then we have got to stop willingly playing underling to the AAC.

How is anyone willingly playing underling to the AAC?

I believe high exit fees is too brash a way to pursue stability. Guarding the door isn't a good look when you're right there with the other non power conferences. I get the argument that it's a deterrent, but that's not what you to be in consideration. If a number is all that keeps someone in, then they're already gone anyway.

I don't mean to **** on the MWC or AAC when I say they are lateral moves, either. It's just the reality of the circumstances. There are various reasons ranging from institutional neglect to regional redundancy we're not in big time conferences already. We're all in the same boat for the most part, and the only remedy is consistent winning over a period of time combined with the necessary facilities and support. Going to another non power conference isn't a shortcut, and I can't really see how it helps for real.

(07-12-2015 08:14 PM)Hopeful Wrote:  I believe high exit fees is too brash a way to pursue stability. Guarding the door isn't a good look

I'd argue that its a statement of solidarity. If the vote passes, how is it guarding the door? The ACC has a 50 million dollar grant of rights. It's just smart business to protect yourself from silver tongued devils. Who here hasn't had star players in their team recruited via back door channels? It's the same thing. There has to be safeguards and penalties to stem any poaching (for the security of the group). We have a lot invested in each other.

CUSA would replace any member we lost with the best available option from the Sun Belt Conference (or JMU if it were Marshall that left). I wouldn't trade Marshall or USM for JMU or anybody in the Sun Belt, but CUSA would survive it if we had to.

(07-12-2015 07:17 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 01:38 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 01:13 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 01:10 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 01:07 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  I bet every team in the conference would jump at an invite from the AAC in its current configuration.

And I wouldn't understand why from a money and instability perspective.

Nor would I. I've made the same argument re moving from the Belt to C-USA but am usually met with incredulous looks of horror from both sides of the fence.

Some might "jump," others would "take a look" but I don't think it would be any better really, considering the main reason they'd want to look at additional schools is them losing UConn and/or Cincinnati, or maybe UCF. Without those first two schools, the AAC is just an even more spread out version of CUSA, and most people understand this.

Many of the other CUSA schools are better organized and more competitive than Rice.

The Western part of CUSA is just as good as any other G5 option for Rice, and better in terms of travel. If we're honest, most of the fans of our small school aren't all that excited about playing the schools in this conference vs the old SWC schools we used to play, but it is what it is. I imagine many fans from other CUSA schools couldn't really give a hoot about playing Rice either. It's not like Rice has been really good or nationally relevant at any major sport but Baseball over the last few decades. Hopefully that will change soon with Men's Basketball this season or next.

We've achieved a level of mediocrity that is somewhat of an improvement for us, but we're far from being a Marshall, LaTECH or even a WKU-type power. We're highly beatable and largely unimpressive in the other major sports, recently padding our record against the lowest-skilled teams so we can tout our "success," while never beating a team above the bottom 70 regular season and getting blown out by most real competitive teams, let alone the name P5 schools we play occasionally.

But we are at least taking advantage of all the additional "warm-up" bowls that have been added to the already bloated postseason schedule that didn't exist years ago against other G5-level schools.

While these games certainly don't generate anywhere near the level of interest of the major bowls we used to be eligible for in previous conferences, at least we do go play a game after the season nowadays, as do most of the rest of schools these days (about two-thirds of all schools give or take). Personally I preferred a bowl schedule where G5 level schools played P5s regularly; where every bowl game meant something more because there were less of them and you had to have won 8 or 9 against a good schedule, but things have been diluted in the interest of filling TV time slots. I think 30 bowls is the most I'd like to see, perhaps even 25, but we have far too many games these days that are meaningless just so coaches can pad their resumes and get raises they probably don't deserve.

+ 1,000

Agree completely. Good post. CUSA West is just as good, or better, for Rice than any other G5. Not to mention, things could really fall apart for the AAC if the BIG12 decides to go to 14.

(07-12-2015 08:14 PM)Hopeful Wrote:  I believe high exit fees is too brash a way to pursue stability. Guarding the door isn't a good look when you're right there with the other non power conferences. I get the argument that it's a deterrent, but that's not what you to be in consideration. If a number is all that keeps someone in, then they're already gone anyway.

I don't mean to **** on the MWC or AAC when I say they are lateral moves, either. It's just the reality of the circumstances. There are various reasons ranging from institutional neglect to regional redundancy we're not in big time conferences already. We're all in the same boat for the most part, and the only remedy is consistent winning over a period of time combined with the necessary facilities and support. Going to another non power conference isn't a shortcut, and I can't really see how it helps for real.

And I've said all along it could actually hurt. Most of our programs don't have an extra $3MM or $4MM lying aound (exit-entrance fees). We all need those funds and better spend them wisely.

(07-12-2015 11:44 AM)BoKnows Wrote:  3.) The probability that CUSA loses a program, other than USM. If we have no exit fee, and a program like UTEP, Charlotte, or ODU is poached after CUSA invested years after moving them up from fbs (to perhaps see them turn into a UCF), the result would be that USM is left again in a conference without a strong team(s) that is/are bringing attention to CUSA.

We fundamentally disagree about the nature of the conference school relationship. Conferences don't invest in schools they provide benefits. Schools invest in themselves and by extension the conference. If a current CUSA gets what they consider a better offer why should they be punished? How have they failed to meet their obligations to CUSA? I get that exit fees are the cost if doing business and likely necessary to make up the cost to the conference to locate a replacement but they shouldn't be seen or used as a deterrent.