http://www.herald-dispatch.com/sports/ma...bc507.html



Might be premature but with the current state of things, it can be hard to disagree with him, and I almost always disagree with him.

So for the last 10 years Marshall has been in a conference with a payout much greater than the MAC. For the next 2 (for certain) it will not. Certainly being in a better paying conference for 10 out of 12 years is a move i would still be happy about. Furthermore just because they pay more (only due to timing of contract negotiations) doesn't mean MAC is a better conference. I wonder how many fan bases in C-USA would want to jump to the MAC if they could for the extra 600K year?

He makes some good points, but I think CUSA will certainly get back to being better than the MAC consistently. CUSA probably is still a better league top to bottom except for TV revenue. And as discussed, we'll make that up and then some by playing in front of big crowds on Saturdays rather than 3,000 fans on a Tuesday. The MAC might be better for Marshall due to the historical rivalries and better geography. Heck, it might also be just as good for ODU as CUSA is at this point. But I do believe that the MAC has hit its ceiling, while CUSA has loads of un-tapped potential. CUSA has larger fan bases, bigger name recognition, better reputation, better recruiting areas... We were the best G5 just 2 years ago. Things change year to year, and CUSA will have its time in the spotlight again. It might even be this season.

(06-14-2016 08:22 AM)herdinva Wrote:  http://www.herald-dispatch.com/sports/ma...bc507.html



Might be premature but with the current state of things, it can be hard to disagree with him, and I almost always disagree with him.

I agree with him too.

(06-14-2016 08:22 AM)herdinva Wrote:  http://www.herald-dispatch.com/sports/ma...bc507.html



Might be premature but with the current state of things, it can be hard to disagree with him, and I almost always disagree with him.

BS... wouldn't have traded the last ten years of playing teams that we only rarely saw in bowls if at all, playing in southern locales, playing in some bigtime venues that were in our conference like ECU, USM, The Sun Bowl, etc. Getting bowl game opportunities with a 6-6 record instead of 1-2 bowls that went to the MACC or division champions. Fans that didn't ostracize us just because of who we are even when we weren't doing well, but especially when we were. Don't miss trips to Michigan in winter. Don't miss trading a couple thousand fans at our worst venue now for less than a hundred at a venue then on free night where a can of soup got you in the game.

We have some nostalgia for the MAC days, but we created anything that was good about those days as the undisputed most dominant team of that era. Leaving them isn't what killed the great time, but decisions our administration made at the end of that run killed our momentum more than changing conferences and perception ever would have.

It was worth what we're going through now just for 2014 season and shutting up the AAC elite as CUSA cruised past them in conference rankings. It was worth it to send Tulane, Tulsa, Memphis, ECU, and Houston packing with an ass-beating on their way out the door.

Hack Landon isn't worth the time to click his links. That's all he writes for. Don't feed the king of the trolls.

Quote:During the last three football seasons, Marshall (33-8 record), Western Kentucky (20-7), Rice (23-16), LA Tech (22-17) and Middle Tennessee (21-17) have been C-USA's standard-bearers.

But with the exception of Old Dominion (11-13), the lower half of C-USA has dragged the league down. Look at their records. FIU is 10-28; FAU, 12-24; UTSA, 14-22; North Texas, 14-23; and Charlotte, 2-10. As a result, in USA Today's 2015 ranking of the 128 FBS teams, C-USA had one member in the top 30 (WKU) and seven in the bottom 30.

No wonder our TV deal sucks.

The MAC's TV deal only paid $110K per school when it was signed in 2009. The original deal in 2003 was virtually zero with the payout being in terms of exposure.

Then the MAC had the good fortune (and fortuitous vision I might add) to sign a long term deal at the very top of this stock market. That bubble almost immediately exploded thereafter.

It came at a time when ESPN signed ridiculously mega merger deals and over paid for content. I have pointed this out before, but the MAC, AAC, ACC, SEC Network, NFL, MLB, the CFB Playoff and more all happened within about an 18-month time frame. They went on a binge. Now they are paying for it. Fox did similar in an effort to remain competitive.

And so far the only property that's had to pay the piper for this is C-USA. If the MAC were renegotiating their deal right now they would get peanuts. They might get a few more peanuts than us, because they are willing to play weeknights, but it would still be peanuts. This is the new normal.

The MAC's deal is now immensely better than ours particularly given the long term nature of it, but like others have said I'm not sure $600K is worth the move. The difference in exposure; however, may be. This is where something will have to change after this short term deal is over. Even as dynamic as this shift is, cable TV isn't going away next year. This is going to take years. Therefore, we need the exposure on ESPN. We have two years to prove we are worth showing on TV.

I would rather be in CUSA than the MAC because I don't want to head north for road games in late October and November. The MAC had some good opponents, but Toledo, BGSU, Ohio and WMU aren't any more fun than playing USM, WKU, Middle, Rice or La. Tech. We have our bottom tier and so does the MAC.

The issue with CUSA is that the powers that be absolutely screwed up the realignment scenario. The whole "markets" thing was misguided. It's about product, it's about winning, it's about brand potential, it's about fan support. How many huge college football brands are located in huge TV markets versus how many are located in towns that would die without the university there?

What the conference needs to do is issue a set of ultimatums to the membership surrounding investment, attendance and performance. There is absolutely no reason that teams like FAU, FIU, UNT and UTSA should not be better. They are located in talent rich, football loving states. We shouldn't tolerate having games with 5 or 6 thousand actual fans in the stands. Get better with your marketing. Heck, I remember living in Louisville in the late 1980s and you could get a free football ticket with a fill up at Thortons (local C-store chain). Get people in the habit of coming out, the seat (and 20,000 just like it) are empty anyway and maybe you can sell them some concessions. Nobody wants to play in an empty stadium, so increase your crowds and you'll also increase your recruiting. Increase your recruiting, increase your winning, it further increases your crowds.

I would much rather be playing the likes of USM, WKU, LaTech, MTSU, Rice, UTEP and go to FL every year than spend cold October and November days in Kalamazoo, DeKalb, Muncie, Akron, Ypsilanti, Kent, et al.

Market strategy was flawed...BIG TIME. Teams that showed "potential" haven't really delivered at all (in terms of football).

This conference is a ship without a rudder and unless our middle of the road teams start delivering, we are gonna be in big trouble.

(06-14-2016 09:19 AM)banker Wrote:  I would rather be in CUSA than the MAC because I don't want to head north for road games in late October and November. The MAC had some good opponents, but Toledo, BGSU, Ohio and WMU aren't any more fun than playing USM, WKU, Middle, Rice or La. Tech. We have our bottom tier and so does the MAC.

The issue with CUSA is that the powers that be absolutely screwed up the realignment scenario. The whole "markets" thing was misguided. It's about product, it's about winning, it's about brand potential, it's about fan support. How many huge college football brands are located in huge TV markets versus how many are located in towns that would die without the university there?

What the conference needs to do is issue a set of ultimatums to the membership surrounding investment, attendance and performance. There is absolutely no reason that teams like FAU, FIU, UNT and UTSA should not be better. They are located in talent rich, football loving states. We shouldn't tolerate having games with 5 or 6 thousand actual fans in the stands. Get better with your marketing. Heck, I remember living in Louisville in the late 1980s and you could get a free football ticket with a fill up at Thortons (local C-store chain). Get people in the habit of coming out, the seat (and 20,000 just like it) are empty anyway and maybe you can sell them some concessions. Nobody wants to play in an empty stadium, so increase your crowds and you'll also increase your recruiting. Increase your recruiting, increase your winning, it further increases your crowds.

First of all, yes, our record has a lot to be desired, but don't lump us in with the "empty stadium" crowd. Since our inception we've averaged some of the larger home attendance numbers in the conference. Last year was our worst year on the field to date and we still came in fourth in attendance:

Southern Miss. 6 170,007 28,335 CUSA
Marshall 6 157,930 26,322 CUSA
UTEP 5 116,058 23,212 CUSA
UTSA 6 138,048 23,008 CUSA

Our performance will improve, but for the love of God, stop saying we don't support our team.

2014:
2nd in CUSA UTSA 27,576 C-USA 4-8
2013:
1st in CUSA UTSA 29,214 C-USA 7-5

(06-14-2016 10:00 AM)Migser31 Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 09:19 AM)banker Wrote:  I would rather be in CUSA than the MAC because I don't want to head north for road games in late October and November. The MAC had some good opponents, but Toledo, BGSU, Ohio and WMU aren't any more fun than playing USM, WKU, Middle, Rice or La. Tech. We have our bottom tier and so does the MAC.

The issue with CUSA is that the powers that be absolutely screwed up the realignment scenario. The whole "markets" thing was misguided. It's about product, it's about winning, it's about brand potential, it's about fan support. How many huge college football brands are located in huge TV markets versus how many are located in towns that would die without the university there?

What the conference needs to do is issue a set of ultimatums to the membership surrounding investment, attendance and performance. There is absolutely no reason that teams like FAU, FIU, UNT and UTSA should not be better. They are located in talent rich, football loving states. We shouldn't tolerate having games with 5 or 6 thousand actual fans in the stands. Get better with your marketing. Heck, I remember living in Louisville in the late 1980s and you could get a free football ticket with a fill up at Thortons (local C-store chain). Get people in the habit of coming out, the seat (and 20,000 just like it) are empty anyway and maybe you can sell them some concessions. Nobody wants to play in an empty stadium, so increase your crowds and you'll also increase your recruiting. Increase your recruiting, increase your winning, it further increases your crowds.

First of all, yes, our record has a lot to be desired, but don't lump us in with the "empty stadium" crowd. Since our inception we've averaged some of the larger home attendance numbers in the conference. Last year was our worst year on the field to date and we still came in fourth in attendance:

Southern Miss. 6 170,007 28,335 CUSA
Marshall 6 157,930 26,322 CUSA
UTEP 5 116,058 23,212 CUSA
UTSA 6 138,048 23,008 CUSA

Our performance will improve, but for the love of God, stop saying we don't support our team.

2014:
2nd in CUSA UTSA 27,576 C-USA 4-8
2013:
1st in CUSA UTSA 29,214 C-USA 7-5

I just wish you guys had your own stadium... Say 30-35000 capacity. It would make your crowds look MUCH better on tv rather than in the cavernous Alamodome... I think you all support your team, but many see a half-empty stadium and pooh pooh your attendance.

(06-14-2016 10:14 AM)THUNDERGround Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 10:00 AM)Migser31 Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 09:19 AM)banker Wrote:  I would rather be in CUSA than the MAC because I don't want to head north for road games in late October and November. The MAC had some good opponents, but Toledo, BGSU, Ohio and WMU aren't any more fun than playing USM, WKU, Middle, Rice or La. Tech. We have our bottom tier and so does the MAC.

The issue with CUSA is that the powers that be absolutely screwed up the realignment scenario. The whole "markets" thing was misguided. It's about product, it's about winning, it's about brand potential, it's about fan support. How many huge college football brands are located in huge TV markets versus how many are located in towns that would die without the university there?

What the conference needs to do is issue a set of ultimatums to the membership surrounding investment, attendance and performance. There is absolutely no reason that teams like FAU, FIU, UNT and UTSA should not be better. They are located in talent rich, football loving states. We shouldn't tolerate having games with 5 or 6 thousand actual fans in the stands. Get better with your marketing. Heck, I remember living in Louisville in the late 1980s and you could get a free football ticket with a fill up at Thortons (local C-store chain). Get people in the habit of coming out, the seat (and 20,000 just like it) are empty anyway and maybe you can sell them some concessions. Nobody wants to play in an empty stadium, so increase your crowds and you'll also increase your recruiting. Increase your recruiting, increase your winning, it further increases your crowds.

First of all, yes, our record has a lot to be desired, but don't lump us in with the "empty stadium" crowd. Since our inception we've averaged some of the larger home attendance numbers in the conference. Last year was our worst year on the field to date and we still came in fourth in attendance:

Southern Miss. 6 170,007 28,335 CUSA
Marshall 6 157,930 26,322 CUSA
UTEP 5 116,058 23,212 CUSA
UTSA 6 138,048 23,008 CUSA

Our performance will improve, but for the love of God, stop saying we don't support our team.

2014:
2nd in CUSA UTSA 27,576 C-USA 4-8
2013:
1st in CUSA UTSA 29,214 C-USA 7-5

I just wish you guys had your own stadium... Say 30-35000 capacity. It would make your crowds look MUCH better on tv rather than in the cavernous Alamodome... I think you all support your team, but many see a half-empty stadium and pooh pooh your attendance.

I can understand that, it's one of those typical heated debates on the UTSA Forum, but at this point it doesn't make sense. Many of the statements are true, we're going through our "growing up" at an FBS level and it takes time and money. Priorities in my mind are: 1) New Basketball Arena 2) New Baseball/Softball Field's 3) Athletic Field House (for all sports) on Campus...................4) On Campus Stadium.

We've got a stupid good agreement with the City for the use of the Alamodome. The city is in the process of putting $50 Million in upgrades to the Alamodome. This will be our first season we're tarping the upper level (which has consequently pissed off a lot of season ticket holders from that level). I personally like the Alamodome and it's location. There's a LOT of things to do before and after a game in the current location. For now it makes sense.

(06-14-2016 09:40 AM)THUNDERGround Wrote:  I would much rather be playing the likes of USM, WKU, LaTech, MTSU, Rice, UTEP and go to FL every year than spend cold October and November days in Kalamazoo, DeKalb, Muncie, Akron, Ypsilanti, Kent, et al.

Market strategy was flawed...BIG TIME. Teams that showed "potential" haven't really delivered at all (in terms of football).

This conference is a ship without a rudder and unless our middle of the road teams start delivering, we are gonna be in big trouble.

A few wins over good programs and the whole ship starts to turn. Our lower level programs need to win OOC, period.

Also, I really think being an ESPN property will help in this regard.

(06-14-2016 10:23 AM)Migser31 Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 10:14 AM)THUNDERGround Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 10:00 AM)Migser31 Wrote:  

(06-14-2016 09:19 AM)banker Wrote:  I would rather be in CUSA than the MAC because I don't want to head north for road games in late October and November. The MAC had some good opponents, but Toledo, BGSU, Ohio and WMU aren't any more fun than playing USM, WKU, Middle, Rice or La. Tech. We have our bottom tier and so does the MAC.

The issue with CUSA is that the powers that be absolutely screwed up the realignment scenario. The whole "markets" thing was misguided. It's about product, it's about winning, it's about brand potential, it's about fan support. How many huge college football brands are located in huge TV markets versus how many are located in towns that would die without the university there?

What the conference needs to do is issue a set of ultimatums to the membership surrounding investment, attendance and performance. There is absolutely no reason that teams like FAU, FIU, UNT and UTSA should not be better. They are located in talent rich, football loving states. We shouldn't tolerate having games with 5 or 6 thousand actual fans in the stands. Get better with your marketing. Heck, I remember living in Louisville in the late 1980s and you could get a free football ticket with a fill up at Thortons (local C-store chain). Get people in the habit of coming out, the seat (and 20,000 just like it) are empty anyway and maybe you can sell them some concessions. Nobody wants to play in an empty stadium, so increase your crowds and you'll also increase your recruiting. Increase your recruiting, increase your winning, it further increases your crowds.

First of all, yes, our record has a lot to be desired, but don't lump us in with the "empty stadium" crowd. Since our inception we've averaged some of the larger home attendance numbers in the conference. Last year was our worst year on the field to date and we still came in fourth in attendance:

Southern Miss. 6 170,007 28,335 CUSA
Marshall 6 157,930 26,322 CUSA
UTEP 5 116,058 23,212 CUSA
UTSA 6 138,048 23,008 CUSA

Our performance will improve, but for the love of God, stop saying we don't support our team.

2014:
2nd in CUSA UTSA 27,576 C-USA 4-8
2013:
1st in CUSA UTSA 29,214 C-USA 7-5

I just wish you guys had your own stadium... Say 30-35000 capacity. It would make your crowds look MUCH better on tv rather than in the cavernous Alamodome... I think you all support your team, but many see a half-empty stadium and pooh pooh your attendance.

I can understand that, it's one of those typical heated debates on the UTSA Forum, but at this point it doesn't make sense. Many of the statements are true, we're going through our "growing up" at an FBS level and it takes time and money. Priorities in my mind are: 1) New Basketball Arena 2) New Baseball/Softball Field's 3) Athletic Field House (for all sports) on Campus...................4) On Campus Stadium.

We've got a stupid good agreement with the City for the use of the Alamodome. The city is in the process of putting $50 Million in upgrades to the Alamodome. This will be our first season we're tarping the upper level (which has consequently pissed off a lot of season ticket holders from that level). I personally like the Alamodome and it's location. There's a LOT of things to do before and after a game in the current location. For now it makes sense.

F that. Majority of UTSA prefer the dome, especially in this South Texas heat. We will get this thing turned around. Plus the upper levels will not be open unless ticket sales demand it. getting those 1-2k in the lower bowl will help it look a little better.

(06-14-2016 09:40 AM)THUNDERGround Wrote:  I would much rather be playing the likes of USM, WKU, LaTech, MTSU, Rice, UTEP and go to FL every year than spend cold October and November days in Kalamazoo, DeKalb, Muncie, Akron, Ypsilanti, Kent, et al.

Market strategy was flawed...BIG TIME. Teams that showed "potential" haven't really delivered at all (in terms of football).

This conference is a ship without a rudder and unless our middle of the road teams start delivering, we are gonna be in big trouble.

Yep. The bottom five schools need to get their act together in football. How can they suck so badly year after year? It's chronic. Charlotte can be bad for a few years, but what's with North Texas, FIU, FAU, and UTSA? All those schools have nice stadiums and have pumped millions into their athletics infrastructure. Something is very wrong. Those are public schools in big cities, but no one cares about them.

UTSA is still new, and I think they are doing great for a start up. I am more impressed with UTSA than I am North Texas, FIU, or Charlotte.

BTW- Did not know you guys would be tarping the upper deck area. That is awesome, and I think it is a great move, provided it isn't some cheap looking tarp (which I doubt it would be.) You guys have any pics of the proposal?

How much does the lower part of the bowl hold?

I can't stand Landon, but, in this column, he got it right.

I was picking on UTSA attendance (for football anyway, basketball is another story). Maybe should have broken the rant into two paragraphs, one about living up to the football potential given your recruiting grounds and one about attendance. The Florida schools are guilty in both discussions.

(06-14-2016 11:40 AM)FlyHawk98 Wrote:  UTSA is still new, and I think they are doing great for a start up. I am more impressed with UTSA than I am North Texas, FIU, or Charlotte.

BTW- Did not know you guys would be tarping the upper deck area. That is awesome, and I think it is a great move, provided it isn't some cheap looking tarp (which I doubt it would be.) You guys have any pics of the proposal?

How much does the lower part of the bowl hold?

I didn't know we'd be tarping the upper east deck either. I sent an idea to the athletics department about four months ago that I found on the internet. There's a soccer team in Europe that tarps it's thousands of empty seats with tarps that look like fans. Maybe they took it and ran with it. Where did you hear this? I think the lower bowl holds about 40k, but a lot of folks sit in the upper west deck as well.

(06-14-2016 08:36 AM)ICB Wrote:  So for the last 10 years Marshall has been in a conference with a payout much greater than the MAC. For the next 2 (for certain) it will not. Certainly being in a better paying conference for 10 out of 12 years is a move i would still be happy about. Furthermore just because they pay more (only due to timing of contract negotiations) doesn't mean MAC is a better conference. I wonder how many fan bases in C-USA would want to jump to the MAC if they could for the extra 600K year?

Let me clarify. No herd fan here wants to remove our time in CUSA. It wasn't happy times due to other circumstances but no way we regretted moving from the MAC. The MAC at that time was not the MAC of today, is was closer to the belt. So no MU fan here is going to say would shouldn't have made the move.

The question presented is since things have changed and this isn't the CUSA we joined, by far, should consideration of the MAC be taken? I dunno, but some of his points are hard to argue.