The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

http://www.sunherald.com/sports/college/...99052.html

(06-11-2016 12:55 PM)WesternBlazer Wrote:  http://www.sunherald.com/sports/college/...99052.html

Couldn't agree more:

UAB, ODU, WKU, Charlotte, Middle Tenn, USM, La Tech and Marshall should bolt...add a couple more quality programs from the southeast (JMU/etc) and PLAY BALL

Dissolving CUSA and creating a new conference wouldnt be smart. The new conference wouldn't be part of the CFP, would lose bowl tie ins, ncaa auto bid, etc. I think it makes sense to realign the Sun Belt and CUSA geographically, since once conference is really no better than the other. In my mind it'd look something like this.

CUSA-UAB, USM, MTSU, La Tech, Rice, UTEP, UNT, UTSA, Arkansas State, La La, La Monroe, Texas State

Sun Belt- FIU, FAU, WKU, ODU, Charlotte, Marshall, Troy, App St, GA State, GA Southern, USA, Coastal Carolina

I guess Ark LR and UTA would remain in the Sun Belt as non football members.

The "get creative" part is good, but then he offers nothing actually creative beyond usual message-board realignment fantasy.

There are a lot of ways to get creative:

a. Go to divisions in all non-revenue sports and play exclusively within them, with possibly a tournament-like round-robin at a central location to start the conference season and then the usual tournament to close it out. UTEP softball would therefore never travel to Norfolk.

b. Heavy promotion of women's basketball, baseball and soccer with the aim of making them at least revenue-neutral. Start including them in basketball/football season ticket packages - just give away tickets and promotional stuff (drink tix for baseball).

c. A cutting-edge streaming network for the revenue sports. beIN may be the opening for this.

Shuffling the deck chairs is not an answer. And any such shuffling that has Troy anywhere but overboard is no solution, either.

(06-11-2016 03:22 PM)58-56 Wrote:  a. Go to divisions in all non-revenue sports and play exclusively within them, with possibly a tournament-like round-robin at a central location to start the conference season and then the usual tournament to close it out. UTEP softball would therefore never travel to Norfolk.

They appear to be headed for divisional play in sports other than football. That leaves us playing most conference games against Tech, USM, and the Texas schools. Don't see how that helps us but it might be good for the league overall.

(06-11-2016 04:11 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(06-11-2016 03:22 PM)58-56 Wrote:  a. Go to divisions in all non-revenue sports and play exclusively within them, with possibly a tournament-like round-robin at a central location to start the conference season and then the usual tournament to close it out. UTEP softball would therefore never travel to Norfolk.

They appear to be headed for divisional play in sports other than football. That leaves us playing most conference games against Tech, USM, and the Texas schools. Don't see how that helps us but it might be good for the league overall.

There's probably a creative way to craft conference schedules that emphasize bus-distance rather than strict divisions; we obviously need to play USM and Mitsu as much as possible. Like, have two or three visiting teams show up at once, and play everyone who's in town.

58-56 is correct. We have to minimize travel for the non-revenue sports, because re-arranging teams will do nothing to improve the quality of football or basketball and improve our contracts. The costs of the move is more than the savings.

F_U is good for playing two universities in one plane ride. Perhaps we could convince schools in the Dallas, Houston, Charlotte, and/or the Tidewater Virginia area to play up from DII to DI (like how Dallas Baptist is DI for baseball) in C*USA for a non-revenue sports. Otherwise group our teams into regions in the non-revenue sports minimize plane rides.

If the conference dissolved or disbanded, would the Texas schools hold all the cards as far as credits since the majority of primary members are from Texas now?

Not sure that this guy understands that dissolving means that every school in the league suffers & it would put the programs behind even more programs.

(06-12-2016 08:09 AM)rook360 Wrote:  If the conference dissolved or disbanded, would the Texas schools hold all the cards as far as credits since the majority of primary members are from Texas now?

What are primary members?

(06-13-2016 08:06 AM)ICB Wrote:  

(06-12-2016 08:09 AM)rook360 Wrote:  If the conference dissolved or disbanded, would the Texas schools hold all the cards as far as credits since the majority of primary members are from Texas now?

What are primary members?

I remember something a while back when Memphis and the other schools were leaving and the Charter/Original members got credits and not the newer schools. Recently I read a thread on the conference board pretty much stating that the Texas schools hold all the cards as far as credits, breaking up the league, and what not.
So if that's true, the Texas schools don't have the numbers so is it more of a primary members (UTEP, Rice) thing. See Post #9 in the link ( http://csnbbs.com/thread-781908-post-133...id13325955 )

(06-11-2016 02:45 PM)BlazintheATL Wrote:  Dissolving CUSA and creating a new conference wouldnt be smart. The new conference wouldn't be part of the CFP, would lose bowl tie ins, ncaa auto bid, etc. I think it makes sense to realign the Sun Belt and CUSA geographically, since once conference is really no better than the other. In my mind it'd look something like this.

CUSA-UAB, USM, MTSU, La Tech, Rice, UTEP, UNT, UTSA, Arkansas State, La La, La Monroe, Texas State

Sun Belt- FIU, FAU, WKU, ODU, Charlotte, Marshall, Troy, App St, GA State, GA Southern, USA, Coastal Carolina

I guess Ark LR and UTA would remain in the Sun Belt as non football members.

No, with all the members from Texas and Arkansas being in CUSA Little Rock and UTA would need to be CUSA instead of the Sun Belt

The future of all G5 conferences is based upon whether this sharp decline in TV revenue - a main bulwark of all conferences' finances - is a trend to greater cuts for G5 or is a temporary set back. Greater future cuts will probably "drive the G5 bus" into more schools deciding that FBS football is just not financially sustainable with the greater COA requirements and medical liability hazards.

With the 7 and 8 figure per school TV contracts going to the fewer P5 conferences and the 6 figure per school TV contracts for G5 going lower and lower, the gap between the two entities is likely to make competitive programs effetively impossible. Even the present "cannon fodder" allusions may become too complimentary - just false flattery. playing the median financed G5 team may become more like playing the median FCS team today.