(08-08-2016 10:50 PM)99beers Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 10:47 PM)LaurelEagleSon Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 10:41 PM)99beers Wrote:  No one is answering this, where are we 10 years later after going aac? Broke. Probably in 5 years. Then what? Short term thinking may be our demise.

I'm not understanding where the broke part comes from. Especially considering we'd be making a considerable amount more money each year compared to what we are going to get from CUSA.

Cusa buyout
Concessions on tv money first years
Inevitable loss of tv money on renegotiation
Travel costs to play temple, uconn, cinci, tulsa, and the scum smu.

Just for starters

uconn and cincy wont be there. Plus we are going to the end of the earth to play utep already.

I want in so i can belong to the aac board. The sarcasm over there is at a totally different level.

(08-08-2016 10:47 PM)LaurelEagleSon Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 10:41 PM)99beers Wrote:  No one is answering this, where are we 10 years later after going aac? Broke. Probably in 5 years. Then what? Short term thinking may be our demise.

I'm not understanding where the broke part comes from. Especially considering we'd be making a considerable amount more money each year compared to what we are going to get from CUSA.

I'm like lauraleagle....your argument makes no sense.

"where are we 10 years later after going to aac"? - better than we would be if we stayed in cusa. agree or disagree?

"broke" - I disagree. if you are right, then we would be broke sooner if we stayed in cusa. you disagree?

"short term thinking may be our demise" - what is your suggestion? please don't say creating a new conference with troy, ull, south alabama and ark state, in comparison to the AAC. talk about broke and starting over....

"Cusa buyout" - wrong...we are a charter member so we get out on the cheap.

"Concessions on tv money first years" - this doesn't even make sense and you are making stuff up. we will be getting $200k from cusa. youd choose the $200k over the AAC alternative (of which you have no idea what that alternative would be).

"Inevitable loss of tv money on renegotiation" - again, you are making stuff up. you don't know what youre talking about. $200k per CUSA team...remember that figure. it does not and will not get worse than that.

"Travel costs to play temple, uconn, cinci, tulsa, and the scum smu" - you left off Memphis (who would also brings fans to our games = money to USM) and Tulane (who would brings fans to our games = money to USM). Cant get much closer than them. SMU (who would brings fans to our games = money to USM) isn't scum and the travel is as cheap as you can get and isn't that far.

also, you really think Old Dominion, West Kentucky, etc., will bring more fans (think ticket sales and concessions) to the Rock than the AAC schools? you should look at attendance figures at the CUSA schools compared with the AAC schools. Have you? I have. While youre doing that...look at a map too. Travel costs will not be that much of a difference and USM will bring in much more revenue by being in the AAC than CUSA to make up any difference...and then some. have you never been wrong about anything and just hate to admit youre wrong about this?

The weaker the AAC gets the weaker CUSA will get.

Less TV money for the AAC means even less for CUSA.

BOTH conferences are in a downward trend if the B12 expands.

The AAC will always be a step ahead of CUSA. It's the pecking order.

If you want to look long term, you have to be in the best position now to advance your perception. Do you really think staying in C-USA is going to do that?

I would agree with going to the AAC, but I still want to play Louisiana Tech non-conference yearly. They've been a good rival for us, and I see no need to shun them. They are a lot like us in so many ways. The others, save Rice, not so much. Maybe rotate Rice and Marshall every other year. I have a feeling if we go to the AAC, UAB will follow soon enough, probably Marshall too.

Think beers is saying, we're stuck between a "rot" and a hard place?

Better not tell the folks in AAC that they're only a smidgen better than C-USA, 'cause when I went on their board you'da thought I was talkin' to MSUcks and OP alumni!

What I don't understand is certain schools talking about being so academically superior (yes...Toolame, SMooo, and Tulsa-Doom are great academic "skools", but that didn't seem a problem for any side in old C-USA), when we're talking about adding football schools with great potential here, not scholastic debate teams!

I'm not overly crazy about the AAC. However if we want to get bigger we need to look that way. Then position ourselves for another conference. We have to stop thinking small time.

I do miss ecu. some of the weirdest things that I've ever seen on a football field happened during a southern miss/ecu game.

I'd love to be in the AAC. I don't think it will ever happen. The AAC has no real identity other than "not Southern Miss." It's like old CUSA decided that the important things were markets, basketball, and not having to play Southern Miss in football because they'll **** up your dream season. So they reformed the conference without Southern Miss, and added in a few teams that cared about market and basketball. These teams' fans probably think Southern Miss is either a chick school in Dallas or a brand of condensed milk.

The world has changed greatly since we first associated ourselves with ECU, Houston, and Memphis. We're going the need to be very creative to go anywhere good.

AAC is a realistic spot for us to work towards. B12 would be a long shot. C-USA isn't going to improve our lot.

So, work really hard to get into AAC, spend some time working on B12. Now, next year, and the 8 years after that AAC is going to be a step above C-USA. We would rather be on a higher step than a lower one.

Yes, AAC media $ will decrease next renegotiation... everyone's will. It will still be a step above C-USA.

(08-08-2016 08:40 PM)99beers Wrote:  I think we rot either way.

Isn't that quote in your signature actually from Stephen Wright? I swear, on EP your sig. even said Stephen Wright.

(08-15-2016 05:14 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(08-08-2016 08:40 PM)99beers Wrote:  I think we rot either way.

Isn't that quote in your signature actually from Stephen Wright? I swear, on EP your sig. even said Stephen Wright.

I think you are on to something........

This is probably going to be the last post I make on this subject (except for the obvious replies to this post ), but this is what needs to happen, IMO: Southern Miss boosters, ticket holders, Golden Eagle club (if there is such a thing),alumni, etc. all need to tell the AD, coaches, and the school president that C-USA has dramatically changed twice since it was founded, and this last big change has made staying in the conference no longer a viable option for USM athletics and that serious push needs to be made to get the American Athletic Conference to give USM membership. Also, games against Marshall and Louisiana Tech need to be kept on the non-conference schedule due to the history (USM's games vs LTU) date all the way back to before World War I !!) and quality opposition.

(08-18-2016 11:36 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  This is probably going to be the last post I make on this subject (except for the obvious replies to this post ), but this is what needs to happen, IMO: Southern Miss boosters, ticket holders, Golden Eagle club (if there is such a thing),alumni, etc. all need to tell the AD, coaches, and the school president that C-USA has dramatically changed twice since it was founded, and this last big change has made staying in the conference no longer a viable option for USM athletics and that serious push needs to be made to get the American Athletic Conference to give USM membership. Also, games against Marshall and Louisiana Tech need to be kept on the non-conference schedule due to the history (USM's games vs LTU) date all the way back to before World War I !!) and quality opposition.

Dawg, not sure what is more confusing....the number of football teams you support or the idea we played La Tech BEFORE WWI? (pre 1914?)

All in good fun by the way, my friend..

(UO? University of....of...Orlando? Oregon Ducks mayhaps?)

(08-18-2016 11:36 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  This is probably going to be the last post I make on this subject (except for the obvious replies to this post ), but this is what needs to happen, IMO: Southern Miss boosters, ticket holders, Golden Eagle club (if there is such a thing),alumni, etc. all need to tell the AD, coaches, and the school president that C-USA has dramatically changed twice since it was founded, and this last big change has made staying in the conference no longer a viable option for USM athletics and that serious push needs to be made to get the American Athletic Conference to give USM membership. Also, games against Marshall and Louisiana Tech need to be kept on the non-conference schedule due to the history (USM's games vs LTU) date all the way back to before World War I !!) and quality opposition.

If the people in control are not already keenly aware of the situation, just informing them of it will be of little value because they will not have the skillset/ability to do anything about it.

I don't think any small private school is really a possible candidate for Big expansion. I think maybe the real target is the northeast media markets. Only possible candidate there is Uconn. They will add BYU and that will be that for a while.
I really think that will be the end of expansion. In fact I believe the next reorganization will shed some bottom feeders and separate the haves from the have nots for good. Maybe I wish to much but that is the best scenario for us. Get back to playing real college football on a more equal footing with our real compadres. Let the Bammers and Lswhos knock themselves out.

No doubt we SHOULDA/WOULDA/COULDA been in the initial AAC group with ANY kind of leadership. For crying out loud, these were mostly teams we had a long-term relationship with (sounds kinda "Days of our Lives", doesn't it?)...

SO...

We were immediately put behind that frickin, frackin' no-good 8-ball on conference expansion...always a step behind...and as time passes we get lumped more and more with the have nots..

Makes me sick..

(08-18-2016 02:03 PM)eaglebeaver Wrote:  No doubt we SHOULDA/WOULDA/COULDA been in the initial AAC group with ANY kind of leadership. For crying out loud, these were mostly teams we had a long-term relationship with (sounds kinda "Days of our Lives", doesn't it?)...

SO...

We were immediately put behind that frickin, frackin' no-good 8-ball on conference expansion...always a step behind...and as time passes we get lumped more and more with the have nots..

Makes me sick..

In the end there will be more have nots than haves. OK. That's the way it always is. We just need to keep on winning until the haves move to the suburbs. Then we can get back to playing those teams we have our real rivalries with. We're not going to be asked to join the country club. Forget about it. However almost all of our equals won't be asked either. So just get back to winning against our peers and enjoy real amateur college football.

I feel like a broken record, but if the AAC falls through, take the best of SBC/CUSA and start up a regional league.

(08-18-2016 11:36 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  This is probably going to be the last post I make on this subject (except for the obvious replies to this post ), but this is what needs to happen, IMO: Southern Miss boosters, ticket holders, Golden Eagle club (if there is such a thing),alumni, etc. all need to tell the AD, coaches, and the school president that C-USA has dramatically changed twice since it was founded, and this last big change has made staying in the conference no longer a viable option for USM athletics and that serious push needs to be made to get the American Athletic Conference to give USM membership. Also, games against Marshall and Louisiana Tech need to be kept on the non-conference schedule due to the history (USM's games vs LTU) date all the way back to before World War I !!) and quality opposition.

Genius right here boys, pure genius.