(07-13-2015 10:28 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 05:34 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 10:53 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  $10M exit fee is laughably terrible. One of the sillier ideas I've seen floated out here.

A scenario many have neglected to mention is a shake up so big there's a reshuffling of G5 or a new conference formed.

I'm not looking to join the AAC, but if our leadership determined it was the right move, I'd be on board, but playing in a more regional conference of a similar strength to CUSA is appealing. With all due respect to those members, I couldn't care less if we ever played another conference game in Texas, or really west of the Mississippi for that matter.

UTEP, UTSA, UNT, Rice, and La Tech were all already in CUSA the day you guys accepted an invitation, and NOW you'd rather not play conference games west of the Mississippi?

Just because I'd rather play in CUSA than the Sun Belt doesn't mean I love the geography, I'm happy to be here, I just believe in small footprints.

I agree with this. We didn't come to CUSA to play MTSU, WKU, Marshall and ODU. WE came to play Rice, USM, UAB, UNT etc... WE are also happy to be here but it is what it is.

(07-13-2015 11:25 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 10:28 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 05:34 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 10:53 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  $10M exit fee is laughably terrible. One of the sillier ideas I've seen floated out here.

A scenario many have neglected to mention is a shake up so big there's a reshuffling of G5 or a new conference formed.

I'm not looking to join the AAC, but if our leadership determined it was the right move, I'd be on board, but playing in a more regional conference of a similar strength to CUSA is appealing. With all due respect to those members, I couldn't care less if we ever played another conference game in Texas, or really west of the Mississippi for that matter.

UTEP, UTSA, UNT, Rice, and La Tech were all already in CUSA the day you guys accepted an invitation, and NOW you'd rather not play conference games west of the Mississippi?

Just because I'd rather play in CUSA than the Sun Belt doesn't mean I love the geography, I'm happy to be here, I just believe in small footprints.

I agree with this. We didn't come to CUSA to play MTSU, WKU, Marshall and ODU. WE came to play Rice, USM, UAB, UNT etc... WE are also happy to be here but it is what it is.

La Tech also didn't sign up to play ULALA and LeMonroe..

As I said, there are levels to this...

(07-12-2015 03:52 PM)BoKnows Wrote:  

(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.

It is immoral to prohibit conference members from leaving.

(07-13-2015 11:23 AM)BoKnows Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 11:06 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 10:49 AM)BoKnows Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 10:40 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 05:09 AM)BoKnows Wrote:  It's no more laughable than a $50 million Grant of Rights. That's the whole point of it.
Your regional conference scenario is more laughable. That's just not going to happen outside of the Sunbelt or CUSA structures. New conferences only form when there's money driving it. No new contracts = no new conference (i.e. this is a business).
There wont be another fbs regional conference because of all the hurdles/red tape involved.
Unless something amazing happens, it is highly probable that the MTSU will be playing in an even more depleted CUSA than it will the AAC. If you want to whistle in the graveyard, you'll soon be able to do it in your home stadium.

Where did I say my reshuffled conference included anyone other than Sun Belt and CUSA? So long as Marshall is still around I'd at least approach Ohio, but I'm not deluded enough to think Memphis, UCF, or ECU are going to be involved.

Bar the doors and enjoy your wacky hostage plot that no one else is signing off on, it's a solid gold plan! Meanwhile, I'm going to believe in MT's future and hope that we are a banner program for CUSA for years to come, but I'm not siging up to be your hostage.

Believe me, MTSU will never be anyone's hostage.

The reason you'll never see your regional conference dream fulfilled is because all of the decent athletic programs within drivable distance don't want to play MTSU.

But, in the spirit of maintaining competitive fairness, CUSA should get paid if a competitor wants to fish off our pier. CUSA didn't make the rules but it needs to adapt if it's going to play by them.

You're missing the point, but coming from a guy who thinks $10M dollars to get out of CUSA is a good idea, that's not surprising.

There are good programs in the Sun Belt in that footprint, I'd gladly be conference mates with South Alabama again and while I'm not entirely sold on Georgia Southern or App State, the early results are promising. Again, I'm not saying I'm looking to get out, I'm not saying I'm looking to kick anyone to the curb, I'm simply saying that if at some point in the future we had the opportunity to be in conference that was relatively equal to our current conference at the time that doesn't include members that are closer to Los Angeles than they are to Murfreesboro, that might be an opportunity I'd want to take.

Again, UTEP is an outlier...

MTSU could have stayed in the Sunbelt. I don't think anyone would have cared. If you'd rather bring South Alabama to your gyms than UTEP, then that speaks a lot about your vision for MTSU's future.

There are levels to this... and you seem to be oblivious.

And there's nothing wrong with that... But, we just have different mentalities as it pertains to competing on a bigger stage. If it were up to you, MTSU would be the belle of the county fair.

Again, you miss the point.

Although I've said this multiple times, I guess it needs to be repeated, I'll slow it down for you.

I'm.......glaaaaaad .....weeeeeee..... leeeeeeeeffffft .....thhhhheeeeee...... Suuuuuuuuunnnnnn ...... Beeeeeeeeelt.


I don't love the geography of CUSA, but it's preferrable to sharing a conference with certain shoe string budgeted members of the Sun Belt.

And for what it's worth, I never once said I'd trade UTEP for USA. I never said I'd trade anyone in CUSA west for anyone in the Sun Belt.

I have simply said that if at some point in the future conference shake ups lead to a choice and one of them included a smaller footprint I wouldn't want to not be able to make that choice based on your wacky hostage demands.

And South Alabama is a fine program that is far closer to the current CUSA profile than they are to the current Sun Belt profile.

Here's a compromise, we'll make the collective exit fee $140 million, UAB can take on the $10M for any other member who isn't in love with the idea, I don't know if you've been keeping up, but I think UAB is getting more than a few shares in this one...

(07-13-2015 11:28 AM)BoKnows Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 11:25 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 10:28 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 05:34 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 10:53 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  $10M exit fee is laughably terrible. One of the sillier ideas I've seen floated out here.

A scenario many have neglected to mention is a shake up so big there's a reshuffling of G5 or a new conference formed.

I'm not looking to join the AAC, but if our leadership determined it was the right move, I'd be on board, but playing in a more regional conference of a similar strength to CUSA is appealing. With all due respect to those members, I couldn't care less if we ever played another conference game in Texas, or really west of the Mississippi for that matter.

UTEP, UTSA, UNT, Rice, and La Tech were all already in CUSA the day you guys accepted an invitation, and NOW you'd rather not play conference games west of the Mississippi?

Just because I'd rather play in CUSA than the Sun Belt doesn't mean I love the geography, I'm happy to be here, I just believe in small footprints.

I agree with this. We didn't come to CUSA to play MTSU, WKU, Marshall and ODU. WE came to play Rice, USM, UAB, UNT etc... WE are also happy to be here but it is what it is.

La Tech also didn't sign up to play ULALA and LeMonroe..

As I said, there are levels to this...

Yes there are, but I don't have a ULM in MT's backyard. If Austin Peay moved to FBS and were going to do so with a ULM type...um..."gusto" I wouldn't want any part of them.

And if push comes to shove, most Tech fans would coexist with the Cajuns, their real disdain is with Monroe first and foremost.

(07-13-2015 11:54 AM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 03:52 PM)BoKnows Wrote:  

(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.

It is immoral to prohibit conference members from leaving.

Nobody is prohibiting anything. Large exit fees and signing GORs has become the price or poker in college athletics. They're a lot more common than fbs golden tickets, I'll tell you that much. ODU's rise to fbs was unusually fast.
The schools who've been here deserve some kind of recompense in any event. It's "immoral" to argue different. For a school like ODU to step over USM's body to another G5 conference without there being a heavy toll is criminal.

(07-13-2015 12:12 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  Again, you miss the point.

Although I've said this multiple times, I guess it needs to be repeated, I'll slow it down for you.

I'm.......glaaaaaad .....weeeeeee..... leeeeeeeeffffft .....thhhhheeeeee...... Suuuuuuuuunnnnnn ...... Beeeeeeeeelt.


I don't love the geography of CUSA, but it's preferrable to sharing a conference with certain shoe string budgeted members of the Sun Belt.

And for what it's worth, I never once said I'd trade UTEP for USA. I never said I'd trade anyone in CUSA west for anyone in the Sun Belt.

I have simply said that if at some point in the future conference shake ups lead to a choice and one of them included a smaller footprint I wouldn't want to not be able to make that choice based on your wacky hostage demands.

And South Alabama is a fine program that is far closer to the current CUSA profile than they are to the current Sun Belt profile.

Here's a compromise, we'll make the collective exit fee $140 million, UAB can take on the $10M for any other member who isn't in love with the idea, I don't know if you've been keeping up, but I think UAB is getting more than a few shares in this one...

That's exactly what you said. lmao.

You've been harping on UTEP throughout this thread.

Hostage demands? You've never heard of exit fees and GOR's agreements before.

You don't know much about a lot of things. And you know little about a few things. Just because I highlighted how idiotic it is to prefer USA coming to your gyms instead of UTEP (a former mbb national champion), you all of a sudden backtrack.

Your regional argument is obtuse. It's like you're trying to argue both sides. You want USA, you don't want USA. The ironic thing is you'll likely be faced with that option sooner than later if the CUSA just spreads its legs again.

The only schools that would actually agree to this are the ones that know they have absolutely no chance in being picked to move elsewhere.

(07-13-2015 12:48 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  The only schools that would actually agree to this are the ones that know they have absolutely no chance in being picked to move elsewhere.

If the MTSU guy thinks he has a chance to move elsewhere, I'm not sure who you mean.

(07-13-2015 09:15 AM)BoKnows Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 08:13 AM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  I don't really understand the possible harm. "Even more depleted CUSA"? CUSA has always been a conference of transition focused on schools with potential.

Believe it or not, when the Metro merged with the Great Midwest, being a feeder system was the furthest intention for what was really a pretty decent conference.

Believe it or not, most of the programs here wont be transitioning to another conference. This is our home.

Believe it or not, the autonomy split (i.e. the "P5" and "G5" designations) has changed the landscape for CUSA and the other G5 programs. CUSA is no longer threatened to lose anyone to a P5 league, and there is no tangible transition to be made from one G5 to another G5 conference.

So, it's not unreasonable, for those remaining in this conference, that the "schools with potential" actually benefit the conference that nurtured that potential. And, if not, to receive a substantial sum for that investment. After all, we're supposed to be in direct competition for that access spot.

We shouldn't be complicit in helping rig the game against ourselves, Colorado fan.

I don't think CUSA now is set up as a feeder system. You are projecting. Just because that was the intention of the initial start doesn't mean reality didn't step in and crush whatever dreams the original creation of CUSA entailed.

Believe it or not I think this version of CUSA is pretty decent and can match most of whatever previous versions have accomplished.

There are plenty of reasons, whether you believe they are tangible or not, to leave CUSA for another conference whether P5 or not.

Again, what has CUSA invested? What did the non-potential schools invest in these other schools? CUSA invited schools. Those schools accepted and are investing in themselves and those investments are likely to directly benefit the conference. Why should schools with "potential", whatever that means and whoever they are, be punished if their preference in conference membership changes?

(07-13-2015 12:39 PM)BoKnows Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 11:54 AM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 03:52 PM)BoKnows Wrote:  

(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.

It is immoral to prohibit conference members from leaving.

Nobody is prohibiting anything. Large exit fees and signing GORs has become the price or poker in college athletics. They're a lot more common than fbs golden tickets, I'll tell you that much. ODU's rise to fbs was unusually fast.
The schools who've been here deserve some kind of recompense in any event. It's "immoral" to argue different. For a school like ODU to step over USM's body to another G5 conference without there being a heavy toll is criminal.

Unusually fast but it happened to UTSA and Charlotte faster than us. Yes UAB and USM are founding members of the conference and have seen a lot of conference mates leave you in the dust but that is not anyone's fault but your own. Was there a heavy toll when ECU, Tulsa and Tulane left?

(07-13-2015 12:54 PM)benny_t Wrote:  Unusually fast but it happened to UTSA and Charlotte faster than us. Yes UAB and USM are founding members of the conference and have seen a lot of conference mates leave you in the dust but that is not anyone's fault but your own. Was there a heavy toll when ECU, Tulsa and Tulane left?

I have no issue with any program that left during the last wave. The first group thought they were moving to the BCS... and ECU, Tulane, and Tulsa, committed before ramifications of the P5/G5 were known..

I'll say it again.. I have no issue with a program accepting a P5 bid. At that point an exit fee becomes moot. I do however, now, have issues with a program moving to another G5 without there being some kind of toll.

We're in direct competition with the other G5's and it takes away conference equity that we all contributed to. The programs that are left with that hot mess deserve to be compensated.

(07-13-2015 12:39 PM)BoKnows Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 11:54 AM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(07-12-2015 03:52 PM)BoKnows Wrote:  

(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.

It is immoral to prohibit conference members from leaving.

Nobody is prohibiting anything. Large exit fees and signing GORs has become the price or poker in college athletics. They're a lot more common than fbs golden tickets, I'll tell you that much. ODU's rise to fbs was unusually fast.
The schools who've been here deserve some kind of recompense in any event. It's "immoral" to argue different. For a school like ODU to step over USM's body to another G5 conference without there being a heavy toll is criminal.

I'm gonna jump in on this one: the bolded is total garbage.

Any school that leaves CUSA doesn't owe the remaining schools anything. Yes, a reasonable exit fee should be paid to help the conference find a replacement and pay for any costs associated. A school leaving the conference isn't stepping over anyone. This isn't a caste system. Schools are free to associate with whomever they like and if certain schools that you feel have been a part of the "club" are upset about "getting stepped over" they should look in the mirror.

(07-13-2015 01:03 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  I'm gonna jump in on this one: the bolded is total garbage.

Any school that leaves CUSA doesn't owe the remaining schools anything. Yes, a reasonable exit fee should be paid to help the conference find a replacement and pay for any costs associated. A school leaving the conference isn't stepping over anyone. This isn't a caste system. Schools are free to associate with whomever they like and if certain schools that you feel have been a part of the "club" are upset about "getting stepped over" they should look in the mirror.

Again, large exit fees are not uncommon.

It's easy to talk big when your balls haven't even dropped yet. If you really think that a start-up program doesn't owe the schools who actually brought the conference a semblance of credibility and tradition (long before you were here, and while you're getting your feet wet), I'd say you're mistaken. You're here on the sweat of their brow. They stamped your papers. Those bowl contracts you're benefitting from are a product of their success. They'd have every right to expect a greater commitment.

(07-13-2015 01:16 PM)BoKnows Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 01:03 PM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  I'm gonna jump in on this one: the bolded is total garbage.

Any school that leaves CUSA doesn't owe the remaining schools anything. Yes, a reasonable exit fee should be paid to help the conference find a replacement and pay for any costs associated. A school leaving the conference isn't stepping over anyone. This isn't a caste system. Schools are free to associate with whomever they like and if certain schools that you feel have been a part of the "club" are upset about "getting stepped over" they should look in the mirror.

Again, large exit fees are not uncommon.

It's easy to talk big when your balls haven't even dropped yet. If you really think that a start-up program doesn't owe the schools who actually brought the conference a semblance of credibility and tradition (long before you were here, and while you're getting your feet wet), I'd say you're mistaken. You're here on the sweat of their brow. They stamped your papers. Those bowl contracts you're benefitting from are a product of their success. They'd have every right to expect a greater commitment.

This isn't about the fees being common or not but whether they are reasonable. I don't care who leaves next whether it's a start-up program or someone who's been here since the beginning. They don't owe the remaining schools anything. ODU is in CUSA because it was invited. Nothing in that invitation meant that ODU was somehow beholden to the schools that issued the invite. You could have gone with several other options, a few that are now conference-mates.

All they should expect is for ODU (or any other member)to remain in good standing (ya know following conference by-laws) something UAB can't claim.

You are making this out to be something it isn't. A massive exit-fee is not only unfeasible, it is a hostile move.

(07-12-2015 05:04 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  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.

Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill: Duke, NC State, UNC-Chapel Hill
Miami-Boca Raton-Coral Gables: Miami, FAU, FIU (am I stretching this too much including Boca?)

(07-13-2015 12:48 PM)BoKnows Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 12:12 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  Again, you miss the point.

Although I've said this multiple times, I guess it needs to be repeated, I'll slow it down for you.

I'm.......glaaaaaad .....weeeeeee..... leeeeeeeeffffft .....thhhhheeeeee...... Suuuuuuuuunnnnnn ...... Beeeeeeeeelt.


I don't love the geography of CUSA, but it's preferrable to sharing a conference with certain shoe string budgeted members of the Sun Belt.

And for what it's worth, I never once said I'd trade UTEP for USA. I never said I'd trade anyone in CUSA west for anyone in the Sun Belt.

I have simply said that if at some point in the future conference shake ups lead to a choice and one of them included a smaller footprint I wouldn't want to not be able to make that choice based on your wacky hostage demands.

And South Alabama is a fine program that is far closer to the current CUSA profile than they are to the current Sun Belt profile.

Here's a compromise, we'll make the collective exit fee $140 million, UAB can take on the $10M for any other member who isn't in love with the idea, I don't know if you've been keeping up, but I think UAB is getting more than a few shares in this one...

That's exactly what you said. lmao.

You've been harping on UTEP throughout this thread.

Hostage demands? You've never heard of exit fees and GOR's agreements before.

You don't know much about a lot of things. And you know little about a few things. Just because I highlighted how idiotic it is to prefer USA coming to your gyms instead of UTEP (a former mbb national champion), you all of a sudden backtrack.

Your regional argument is obtuse. It's like you're trying to argue both sides. You want USA, you don't want USA. The ironic thing is you'll likely be faced with that option sooner than later if the CUSA just spreads its legs again.

I don't even know why I bother talking, you're doing a fine job of putting words in my mouth, I should just sit back and let you handle it. You need more than one mouth for your laughable plan I suppose.

This conversation has always been framed in the future and under the assumption that movement has already begun.

I have pointed out that one of the negatives of CUSA is the sprawling footprint and that when you said that there weren't good programs closer, I said that I would gladly be conference mates with USA again.

You turned all that into me saying I want to trade UTEP for USA, which simply isn't what I said. UTEP is a great program and good for the conference, but let's face it, UTEP to the MWC is as likely as any move in this conference, so don't act as if a future without UTEP is just unfathomable or I'm the only one to ever talk about it.

CUSA is our home and I'm proud to be associated with the other 13 members, I'm sorry that my preference for a more travel friendly conference has offended your delicate sensabilities. Where do I sign up for your genius plan? With your propensity for speaking for me, I'm sure I'll be loving your wacky plan(unlike the majority of the others in this thread who you haven't quite figured out how to speak for) in no time.

All hail BoKnows! $100M exit fees! BoKnows for commish!

Give 'em hell BoKnows!

you guys are having an extremely long debate on something that will never happen...
i cant think of a single team in c-usa that would approve this

(07-13-2015 02:12 PM)pesik Wrote:  you guys are having an extremely long debate on something that will never happen...
i cant think of a single team in c-usa that would approve this

Agreed. We have better chances of P5 invites than a $10M exit fee getting an ounce of support from any of our leaders.