(12-15-2015 09:53 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 08:43 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  offering PhDs does not necessarily make any school a top ranked university

Many of the Cal State schools are very difficult to get into and offer high quality academics

Perhaps but the Cal State schools will forever be behind the UC schools. Cal State-San Diego aka SDSU has increased its academic profile but it will never reach the status of UC-San Diego. The powers that be in Sacramento will make sure the status quo stays.

that does not mean they are not very high quality universities especially when compared to other public schools outside of California

(12-15-2015 10:14 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 09:53 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 08:43 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  offering PhDs does not necessarily make any school a top ranked university

Many of the Cal State schools are very difficult to get into and offer high quality academics

Perhaps but the Cal State schools will forever be behind the UC schools. Cal State-San Diego aka SDSU has increased its academic profile but it will never reach the status of UC-San Diego. The powers that be in Sacramento will make sure the status quo stays.

that does not mean they are not very high quality universities especially when compared to other public schools outside of California

Other than San Diego State which I noted has increased its academic profile, what are the other ones? Northridge? Sacramento? Fullerton? Dominguez Hills? San Bernardino? L.A.? Bakersfield? Fresno? Long Beach? The Cal Poly schools?

(12-16-2015 12:55 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 10:14 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 09:53 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 08:43 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  offering PhDs does not necessarily make any school a top ranked university

Many of the Cal State schools are very difficult to get into and offer high quality academics

Perhaps but the Cal State schools will forever be behind the UC schools. Cal State-San Diego aka SDSU has increased its academic profile but it will never reach the status of UC-San Diego. The powers that be in Sacramento will make sure the status quo stays.

that does not mean they are not very high quality universities especially when compared to other public schools outside of California

Other than San Diego State which I noted has increased its academic profile, what are the other ones? Northridge? Sacramento? Fullerton? Dominguez Hills? San Bernardino? L.A.? Bakersfield? Fresno? Long Beach? The Cal Poly schools?

Cal Poly-SLO is definitely on par with the lower tier of the UC's.

I'm a native Californian, so I was always told the Cal State schools were not good. I lived not to far from CSUN (Northridge) and I considered them due to convenience but my counselor advised me not to apply. I know that was back in the early to mid 90s so I'm glad some of that negative perception changed.

I remember reading on the MWC board a few years ago from some Fresno State fans how the state was neglecting them money wise and always found an excuse not to approve doctoral programs.

(12-15-2015 07:21 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 05:42 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 03:58 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  UTEP has always been a kind of black sheep simply because of geographical separation. They'd fit well in the MWC.

The MWC historically has been academically snobby. UTEP is a pretty inclusive school admissions - wise, and that hurts their case.

Then explain UNLV, Boise State and Fresno State academics. UTEP offers multiple PhD programs while the Cal State schools in Fresno, San Diego and San Jose offer anywhere from zero to very limited doctoral programs.

Well, conferences other than the SEC and Big 10 have had to compromise recently. The Boise addition in particular seems desperate. It doesn't change the fact that the MWC cares about academics.

(12-15-2015 11:41 AM)JCMiner Wrote:  Just being honest but C-USA is behind the AAC and MWC in football. Both conference have played and won multiple BCS/New Year's Bowl. Until we win one or at least play for one we will remain behind them.

And last year was a different story... And the year before that a different story from that one.

Unless one GROUP (not just one school) In a conference proves consistency, you cannot say one conference is better than another.

Quote:Any team that wouldn't jump at a chance to move to one of those conferences is foolish.

And after you move, what do you do if the conference you left got better? DO you move back?

Doesn't work that way. You move if _all_ the dominoes go the right way (Travel, income, exposure, etc. vs. financial costs for moving).

Quote:While we have some good football teams we lack the name brand recognition. Two years ago an undefeated Marshall was behind a two loss Boise team in the CFP rankings.

Again, SOS has not helped Marshall in that regard, not to mention that any ranking system is flawed in that regard... Again, "Name brand" is seen as 'better' than talent on the field many times in the past, there's absolutely nothing you can do about that far often, regardless of whomever you are.

USM during our GREAT runs were always "the guys who could knock you off, but we don't want them at our party". Marshall can say that in recent years.. I think WKU's going to find that out soon too.

Again, Boise's star has dimmed quite a bit in the past few years, actually, because they've NOT been able to go undefeated in conference play.

We're not the "names" that the general public is force-fed by E-Spin, and that wouldn't change if UTEP did jump to the MWC.

Again, that's not to begrudge UTEP if they did want to play teams closer to them in the MWC.

Rice however, I don't get wanting to make a jump.. cause they're not that far from La Tech's location and we've already seen La Tech fans say how much of a disaster traveling and the lack of visiting fans has been.

Do they really think they'd get more visiting.. Hawaii or Fresno State fans than they would get USM/La Tech/UTSA/etc fans?

And do they really want fans of Fresno State and Hawaii in their stadium? Those people are obnoxious.

(12-15-2015 02:57 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 10:52 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Two things that I have come across that prompted the MW to discuss expansion.
Rice made overtures to the MW about membership, UTEP did not. UTEP was a tag along for fill in at #14 if they desired. Each school would need to bring $3.5 million in additional revenue to break even or some combo to meet the $7 million for 2 schools.

The MW is in its 3rd year under the current alignment. Things are settling in and while expansion isn't in the cards, the MW is willing to listen and discuss the fit.

I don't think there is any backhand pressure to bring BYU back. Half of the conference really doesn't want them back and the MW is more stable and the schools have the same mission and values. BYU uses athletics as a mission to spread the religion. That isn't to say that the MW is against taking religious schools (i.e. TCU) but ones that its sole purpose is to spread its faith.

All that the UTEP AD, Bob Stull, had to say on this was:

"I think all universities are always aware of potential conference movement, they always try to do what's in their best interest," athletic director Bob Stull said. "Conference USA has been good to us. Period."

Stull's choice of words are very intriguing. I've always thought Mike Price was the sole reason we didn't go to the MWC before. Now that he is long gone, we may see a move coming.

(12-16-2015 09:23 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(12-15-2015 11:41 AM)JCMiner Wrote:  Just being honest but C-USA is behind the AAC and MWC in football. Both conference have played and won multiple BCS/New Year's Bowl. Until we win one or at least play for one we will remain behind them.

And last year was a different story... And the year before that a different story from that one.

Unless one GROUP (not just one school) In a conference proves consistency, you cannot say one conference is better than another.

Quote:Any team that wouldn't jump at a chance to move to one of those conferences is foolish.

And after you move, what do you do if the conference you left got better? DO you move back?

Doesn't work that way. You move if _all_ the dominoes go the right way (Travel, income, exposure, etc. vs. financial costs for moving).

Quote:While we have some good football teams we lack the name brand recognition. Two years ago an undefeated Marshall was behind a two loss Boise team in the CFP rankings.

Again, SOS has not helped Marshall in that regard, not to mention that any ranking system is flawed in that regard... Again, "Name brand" is seen as 'better' than talent on the field many times in the past, there's absolutely nothing you can do about that far often, regardless of whomever you are.

USM during our GREAT runs were always "the guys who could knock you off, but we don't want them at our party". Marshall can say that in recent years.. I think WKU's going to find that out soon too.

Again, Boise's star has dimmed quite a bit in the past few years, actually, because they've NOT been able to go undefeated in conference play.

We're not the "names" that the general public is force-fed by E-Spin, and that wouldn't change if UTEP did jump to the MWC.

Again, that's not to begrudge UTEP if they did want to play teams closer to them in the MWC.

Rice however, I don't get wanting to make a jump.. cause they're not that far from La Tech's location and we've already seen La Tech fans say how much of a disaster traveling and the lack of visiting fans has been.

Do they really think they'd get more visiting.. Hawaii or Fresno State fans than they would get USM/La Tech/UTSA/etc fans?

We played Hawaii last year at home, and to be honest, they brought as many fans as about half of C-USA schools.

It is also important to remember that the teams we would be playing most frequently would be different than those that LA Tech most frequently played. Our division would most likely be: UTEP, New Mexico, Air Force, Colorado State, Wyoming, and Boise.. That's a lot different than playing SDSU, Hawaii, SJSU, Utah St, etc...

Also, Houston is more appealing to visiting fans than Ruston for obvious reasons (ease of access, alumni bases, etc..).

Quote:DaSaintFan Wrote:
(Yesterday 11:41 AM)JCMiner Wrote:
Just being honest but C-USA is behind the AAC and MWC in football. Both conference have played and won multiple BCS/New Year's Bowl. Until we win one or at least play for one we will remain behind them.

And last year was a different story... And the year before that a different story from that one.

Unless one GROUP (not just one school) In a conference proves consistency, you cannot say one conference is better than another.

I really don't want to do this because I don't want to bring bad publicity to our conference. Using RealTimeRpi I went back the last 12 years (that's as far back as it goes) and not once did C-USA finish ranked the best of the "G5". The MW finished #1 seven of the twelve years. Once they finished ahead of the Pac 10 and another time ahead of the Big East. The WAC which is no longer in existence finished #1 three times. The AAC has Finished #1 in two of their three seasons alive.

Still we don't have a BCS/New Year's Bowl Appearance. The MW has Five appearances and four victories. The WAC once again rest in peace had three appearances and two wins. Both teams that played in BCS games for the WAC are now part of the MWC. The AAC in three years has two appearances with one victory and a shot to go two for two on New Years. How you don't believe C-USA is behind the MW and AAC is beyond me.

Quote:Quote:
Any team that wouldn't jump at a chance to move to one of those conferences is foolish.

And after you move, what do you do if the conference you left got better? DO you move back?

Doesn't work that way. You move if _all_ the dominoes go the right way (Travel, income, exposure, etc. vs. financial costs for moving).

Has that ever happened? I can't find an instance where a team left a conference behind only for the conference they left to get better. I have seen the opposite. TCU left C-USA and won two BCS bowls in the MW. Boise St left the WAC and won a New Years Bowl in the MW. UCF left C-USA and they won a NYB. Houston the same.

Quote:Quote:
While we have some good football teams we lack the name brand recognition. Two years ago an undefeated Marshall was behind a two loss Boise team in the CFP rankings.

Again, SOS has not helped Marshall in that regard, not to mention that any ranking system is flawed in that regard... Again, "Name brand" is seen as 'better' than talent on the field many times in the past, there's absolutely nothing you can do about that far often, regardless of whomever you are.

Exactly the SOS is key. Boise St was fortunate that two ooc teams they scheduled BYU and Lafayette were having a good year and finished ranked in the top 50. But they also reaped the rewards of playing higher ranked teams in conference.

The conference schedule really benefited Boise St. They played three teams in the top 40. While Marshall only played one in the top 50. Even if Marshall had beaten WKU the Access Bowl was going to go to a 2 loss MW team instead of an undefeated Marshall. The big Key is that once conference play started Boise faced better teams than Marshall did.

Boise Conference games (RPI)
#30,#32,#39,#68,#77,#89,#89,#95,#105
Marshall Conference games
#45,#54,#59,#78,#82,#85,#106,#133,#128

While in some instances the MW teams might only be ahead by a few RPI points it's when you add them all up that the difference in sos is acquired.

Once again I'm just being honest and evaluating the numbers through the years. The MW has won big important games and earned the right to have the inside track to the New Year's Bowl. The AAC in it's short existence already has two #1 best of G5 titles and two NY bowls. It's accumulative history and accomplishments that places them ahead of us. They have it we don't. You can thank UTEP, USM and possibly WKU for us never participating in the big boy stage. Our claim to fame is that last year we finished in second place ahead of the AAC.

I wish I could find information before 2003 to see how C-USA used to be compared to the others but it seems like it has been forever erased from the internet.

I want our conference to succeed and be considered the best of the G5 but I am also realistic and give credit to where it's due.

(12-16-2015 05:44 PM)JCMiner Wrote:  I wish I could find information before 2003 to see how C-USA used to be compared to the others but it seems like it has been forever erased from the internet.

I want our conference to succeed and be considered the best of the G5 but I am also realistic and give credit to where it's due.

There are only 2 teams in the current CUSA that were in the 2003 CUSA, USM and UAB so in essence, it was a different conference but just has the same name.

In that 2003 CUSA, one team was ranked (TCU at #24).
This version of CUSA has only one team ranked (WKU at #25...at least until the Bowl game).

The 2003 CUSA had an 0-13 Army team and a 1-11 ECU team.
This 2015 CUSA had a 1-11 UNT team and a 2-11 Charlotte team.

(12-16-2015 06:46 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 06:24 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  There are only 2 teams in the current CUSA that were in the 2003 CUSA, USM and UAB so in essence, it was a different conference but just has the same name.

I know you're talking football here but let's still acknowledge that Charlotte was a C-USA member then and now.

True

(12-16-2015 06:24 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(12-16-2015 05:44 PM)JCMiner Wrote:  I wish I could find information before 2003 to see how C-USA used to be compared to the others but it seems like it has been forever erased from the internet.

I want our conference to succeed and be considered the best of the G5 but I am also realistic and give credit to where it's due.

There are only 2 teams in the current CUSA that were in the 2003 CUSA, USM and UAB so in essence, it was a different conference but just has the same name.

In that 2003 CUSA, one team was ranked (TCU at #24).
This version of CUSA has only one team ranked (WKU at #25...at least until the Bowl game).

The 2003 CUSA had an 0-13 Army team and a 1-11 ECU team.
This 2015 CUSA had a 1-11 UNT team and a 2-11 Charlotte team.

Good stuff here, Apollo.

C-USA 1.0 was a multiple basketball conference with Louisville, Cincinnati, Charlotte, DePaul, Marquette and St Louis along with UAB, Memphis and Houston (which was bad but had history). That's a basketball core that 2.0 and 3.0 will never match although I'm optimistic about 3.0's basketball getting better in the future compared to how I felt in 2.0. It was a Calipari led Memphis team that was at another level with a couple of decent or average teams in UAB and UTEP with the rest being from mediocre to awful.

Football had USM, Louisville and TCU. Other than that the rest of 1.0 was meh. 2.0 was way worse. 2.0 never made it to the BCS the way the MWC and WAC did, even the MAC had one appearance. Our only hope was in 2011 when both ranked Houston and USM played on ABC and Houston cooged it by losing to also ranked USM. One year we had our champ (Houston) lost to ULaLa in OOC and we were usually embarrassed in the Liberty Bowl (ask ECU). That's why I laugh when people say 2.0 was something especial. We were not.

I'm a fan of both UTEP (usually one of my favorite conference games) and Rice. I'm all about conference mates moving up, too. It's bittersweet being left behind, but I'm all about our respective universities taking advantage of good opportunities. While I could see UTEP opting for the move for obvious reasons, I don't think there's any reason to be hasty unless something crazy went down. There's going to be another shift and I'd hate to see either school get Big East'ed.

As far as our conference goes, it's disappointing that we're down but what can you do? I don't really think anyone is in a position to dump on anyone else. All the chest beating doesn't really amount to much at all when the best teams we produce usually fold like origami in big games.

It's time for UTEP to go home. This version of CUSA has nothing to offer the Miners from a football perspective and MWC Basketball is much better. UTSA is much closer to Houston than El Paso so the MWC for them is not exactly a no-brainer.

(12-16-2015 08:56 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  C-USA 1.0 was a multiple basketball conference with Louisville, Cincinnati, Charlotte, DePaul, Marquette and St Louis along with UAB, Memphis and Houston (which was bad but had history). That's a basketball core that 2.0 and 3.0 will never match although I'm optimistic about 3.0's basketball getting better in the future compared to how I felt in 2.0. It was a Calipari led Memphis team that was at another level with a couple of decent or average teams in UAB and UTEP with the rest being from mediocre to awful.

Football had USM, Louisville and TCU. Other than that the rest of 1.0 was meh. 2.0 was way worse. 2.0 never made it to the BCS the way the MWC and WAC did, even the MAC had one appearance. Our only hope was in 2011 when both ranked Houston and USM played on ABC and Houston cooged it by losing to also ranked USM. One year we had our champ (Houston) lost to ULaLa in OOC and we were usually embarrassed in the Liberty Bowl (ask ECU). That's why I laugh when people say 2.0 was something especial. We were not.

CUSA 2.0 basketball was unfortunately wildly ahead of the monstrosity that is CUSA 3.0.

Most of our banner basketball teams haven't been up to snuff the last couple of years. UTEP, ODU, WKU, UAB, Charlotte, USM should all be in the top 125 or so nearly every year in the RPI before coming into conference play. LT and MTSU are pulling their weight right now OOC.

If you saw a basketball conference with UAB, WKU, ODU, UTEP, Charlotte, Southern Miss, La. Tech, and MTSU you would probably think "oh, that's a pretty decent set of teams right there."

2013 Average RPI for those 8 teams: 107
2014 Average RPI for those 8 teams: 132
2015 Current Average RPI for those 8 teams: 161

As you can see we're trending down pretty dramatically each year. Hopefully that reverses next year.

RealtimeRPI conference RPI:

2005: #13
2006: #11
2007: #10
2008: #10
2009: #11
2010: #8
2011: #9
2012: #11
2013: #13
_______________________
2014: #17
2015: #21

JC,there's one line your train of thought that I see a a problem with the statement:

Quote:The MW has Five appearances and four victories. The WAC once again rest in peace had three appearances and two wins. Both teams that played in BCS games for the WAC are now part of the MWC.

So we're basically rating two entire conference based on 4 teams (Unless I'm missing someone off the top of my head.)?

Utah
TCU (who played everyone like a drum to get where they wanted to go.)
Boise State
Hawaii

Don't get me wrong those teams did what they had to do, as three of them had to have typically long strings of 0 and 1 loss seasons to get to the big games. But for instance the WAC outside of 2010 (and maybe 2007), was Boise State, Hawaii and everyone else. Unfortunately, I'm too busy at the office to check out the MWC (but I might do that if things slow down). It's all about perspective...

And until we get off probation, I wouldn't include USM as one of the good basketball teams right now... (we were #304 of 305 teams until a short time ago :)

(12-17-2015 09:16 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  JC,there's one line your train of thought that I see a a problem with the statement:

Quote:The MW has Five appearances and four victories. The WAC once again rest in peace had three appearances and two wins. Both teams that played in BCS games for the WAC are now part of the MWC.

So we're basically rating two entire conference based on 4 teams (Unless I'm missing someone off the top of my head.)?

Utah
TCU (who played everyone like a drum to get where they wanted to go.)
Boise State
Hawaii

Don't get me wrong those teams did what they had to do, as three of them had to have typically long strings of 0 and 1 loss seasons to get to the big games. But for instance the WAC outside of 2010 (and maybe 2007), was Boise State, Hawaii and everyone else. Unfortunately, I'm too busy at the office to check out the MWC (but I might do that if things slow down). It's all about perspective...

And until we get off probation, I wouldn't include USM as one of the good basketball teams right now... (we were #304 of 305 teams until a short time ago :)

You also had an RPI in the 30s a short time ago

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

There is a lot of talk about the "issue" of Rice being on an island in the MWC. I think there are issues with Rice in the MWC, but there are also issues with Rice in C-USA 3.0. Rice may feel on an island geographically in the MWC, but Rice has a different recruiting posture than any other team in C-USA (one that is much closer to Air Force than anyone in this C-USA). The academics of Rice open doors, and perhaps more importantly close others, on the recruiting trail. Rice could leverage its place as a Top 20 university located in the Western half of the country in pulling students from the mountain west states.

Academically and historically, Rice is on an island in C-USA that is only made semi acceptable based upon geographic proximity. UTEP is our oldest rivalry in this C-USA at around 15 games. We had almost 90 games in our history with SMU and 70 with UH. While I particularly find USM, La Tech and UTSA (and UTEP) as good for Rice, the overall conference leaves everyone with the potential to find a better landing spot. Rice's options are west for now and should be explored.