(12-06-2023 10:35 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 09:59 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 07:58 AM)RustonBulldog Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 01:00 AM)Turtle Power 98 Wrote:  I'd personally rather have Tarleton than UMass. UMass right now in basketball is ranked 95th, but Tarleton St surprisingly is 130th. Not bad. In football, using Sagarin rankings, Tarleton is 133rd, UMass is 177th. Baseball, Tarleton is 183rd, UMass is 280th. Tarleton hasn't been at this long and they are already superior to UMass and far, far more upside. I still hear UMass students whining about how they are academically superior to CUSA...if that's the case, and you don't get your position right now, I'm not throwing you a life raft. Especially after your FBS football record is one of worst of all time.

Tarleton is a school everyone other conference would laugh at us for and then in five years go “Oh ****, those guys are really good”

Texas A&M is pouring money into that school.

So it would be like UTSA. We would babysit them for a couple years and just as they get good they leave. Hard pass.

If we invite someone, we want them to be good. If you don't want another school to compete with for the next round of realignment, the better option is not to invite anyone at all.

I don't see the potential for UMass that y'all apparently do, but if it remotely came to pass, you'd have the same issue there.

You invite UMass for one reason and one reason only. They are worth more than the whole conference combined. The CUSA commish said they invited Delaware because of their "media markets." If you want to make any money at all, you need to add some teams that can generate money for the conference. Nobody out there can do what UMass can do except for UConn and they aren't interested.

(12-06-2023 10:35 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 09:59 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 07:58 AM)RustonBulldog Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 01:00 AM)Turtle Power 98 Wrote:  I'd personally rather have Tarleton than UMass. UMass right now in basketball is ranked 95th, but Tarleton St surprisingly is 130th. Not bad. In football, using Sagarin rankings, Tarleton is 133rd, UMass is 177th. Baseball, Tarleton is 183rd, UMass is 280th. Tarleton hasn't been at this long and they are already superior to UMass and far, far more upside. I still hear UMass students whining about how they are academically superior to CUSA...if that's the case, and you don't get your position right now, I'm not throwing you a life raft. Especially after your FBS football record is one of worst of all time.

Tarleton is a school everyone other conference would laugh at us for and then in five years go “Oh ****, those guys are really good”

Texas A&M is pouring money into that school.

So it would be like UTSA. We would babysit them for a couple years and just as they get good they leave. Hard pass.

If we invite someone, we want them to be good. If you don't want another school to compete with for the next round of realignment, the better option is not to invite anyone at all.

I don't see the potential for UMass that y'all apparently do, but if it remotely came to pass, you'd have the same issue there.

That is perhaps my bias against Texas programs. They seem to get golden tickets the second they show a pulse. UTSA was dreadful for years before they finally figured it out and we're gone the second they did. I would have much preferred them to be good the whole time. Everyone is CUSA is a flight risk, and UMass would be too, but there seems to be a constant pressure of Texas being the place everyone wants a foothold in. There isn't the same pressure for programs in the North East.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12-06-2023 11:25 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 10:35 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 09:59 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 07:58 AM)RustonBulldog Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 01:00 AM)Turtle Power 98 Wrote:  I'd personally rather have Tarleton than UMass. UMass right now in basketball is ranked 95th, but Tarleton St surprisingly is 130th. Not bad. In football, using Sagarin rankings, Tarleton is 133rd, UMass is 177th. Baseball, Tarleton is 183rd, UMass is 280th. Tarleton hasn't been at this long and they are already superior to UMass and far, far more upside. I still hear UMass students whining about how they are academically superior to CUSA...if that's the case, and you don't get your position right now, I'm not throwing you a life raft. Especially after your FBS football record is one of worst of all time.

Tarleton is a school everyone other conference would laugh at us for and then in five years go “Oh ****, those guys are really good”

Texas A&M is pouring money into that school.

So it would be like UTSA. We would babysit them for a couple years and just as they get good they leave. Hard pass.

If we invite someone, we want them to be good. If you don't want another school to compete with for the next round of realignment, the better option is not to invite anyone at all.

I don't see the potential for UMass that y'all apparently do, but if it remotely came to pass, you'd have the same issue there.

That is perhaps my bias against Texas programs. They seem to get golden tickets the second they show a pulse. UTSA was dreadful for years before they finally figured it out and we're gone the second they did. I would have much preferred them to be good the whole time. Everyone is CUSA is a flight risk, and UMass would be too, but there seems to be a constant pressure of Texas being the place everyone wants a foothold in. There isn't the same pressure for programs in the North East.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well they did start playing football from scratch. That is not that easy.

Texans like football. If you put a Texas team on TV, they will watch it.

(12-06-2023 09:59 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 07:58 AM)RustonBulldog Wrote:  Tarleton is a school everyone other conference would laugh at us for and then in five years go “Oh ****, those guys are really good”

Texas A&M is pouring money into that school.

So it would be like UTSA. We would babysit them for a couple years and just as they get good they leave. Hard pass.

Where would they go?

There's one more possible Realignment Apocalypse happening, out in the far west with the 2PAC and MWC. It *could* impact the AAC as well, if the 2PAC retains enough power to pull some of the stronger academic schools their way.

If the remaining MWC schools need to backfill, it's possible they could come sniffing around UTEP and NMSU. Tarleton, Sammy and La Tech are possible as well, but all three are much more of a stretch geographically and would probably choose to remain in a predominantly southern/eastern conference.

When it comes to the AAC, there are better candidates elsewhere. Even if Tarleton finds success at FBS, Stephenville doesn't exactly fit the AAC profile of large urban market schools.

As for the Sun Belt, while they're arguably "better" than CUSA right now, we're a better basketball conference, and there's no guarantee their advantage will last in football. (Realistically, they'll probably retain their baseball advantage for the foreseeable future, but baseball is not a driver for realignment.)

Liberty's NY6 appearance could be a game changer for the Flames, NMSU has turned the corner, Jax State will be competing for the first time in 2024 as a FULLY bowl eligible team, WKU will likely improve to their usual standards... heck, even Sammy appears to have rediscovered his winning ways in the last several weeks of this season. That's a lot of potential strength at the top of the conference, with all eyes on teams like UTEP, La Tech, and MTSU, who don't normally linger in the cellar. FIU is still struggling, but if MacIntyre can get things rolling down there, all bets are off. South Florida schools are usual feast or famine. They're just about due to start eating again...

No one knows what KSU's transition will be like. They've struggled the past two seasons in FCS, but they've also been using these years to install a new offense and evaluate younger talent. They could come in ready to shove FIU out of the way and make their home in the cellar, or they could come in like JSU, completely disrespecting their elders and not taking their place at the kids' table. It really could go either way.

Delaware should come in reasonably strong from the start in 2025.

All this points toward a much improved media deal when it comes time to renegotiate in a few more years.

tl;dr: Even if Tarleton comes in and enjoys UTSA-style success, there's no guarantee any offers they get may be better than remaining in CUSA. We're talking nearly 5 years down the road at an absolute minimum. The "G5" hierarchy can change a lot in that amount of time.

Football attendance with prospective expansion candidates

1. JSU (20,033)
2. LU (18,911)
*Tarleton (18,697)
3. UTEP (18,160)
4. LaTech (15,796)
5. WKU (15,710)
#Delaware (15,564)
6. FIU (15,290)
7. NMSU (14,847)
8. MTSU (13,219)
*EKU (11,655)
*UMass (10,597)
*MSU (9,143)
9. SHSU (8,298)
*SFA (8,100)
#KSU (7,857)

*-expansion candidate
#-future member

Tarleton is basically TCU. They are an hour from Ft. Worth. They are a state school. They are already bigger than TCU. They are North Texas. If you would add North Texas to the conference, you add Tarleton. They are going to be at least as good and as valuable as North Texas.

(12-06-2023 10:57 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  No potential

That's my concern!

(12-06-2023 11:25 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 10:35 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 09:59 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 07:58 AM)RustonBulldog Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 01:00 AM)Turtle Power 98 Wrote:  I'd personally rather have Tarleton than UMass. UMass right now in basketball is ranked 95th, but Tarleton St surprisingly is 130th. Not bad. In football, using Sagarin rankings, Tarleton is 133rd, UMass is 177th. Baseball, Tarleton is 183rd, UMass is 280th. Tarleton hasn't been at this long and they are already superior to UMass and far, far more upside. I still hear UMass students whining about how they are academically superior to CUSA...if that's the case, and you don't get your position right now, I'm not throwing you a life raft. Especially after your FBS football record is one of worst of all time.

Tarleton is a school everyone other conference would laugh at us for and then in five years go “Oh ****, those guys are really good”

Texas A&M is pouring money into that school.

So it would be like UTSA. We would babysit them for a couple years and just as they get good they leave. Hard pass.

If we invite someone, we want them to be good. If you don't want another school to compete with for the next round of realignment, the better option is not to invite anyone at all.

I don't see the potential for UMass that y'all apparently do, but if it remotely came to pass, you'd have the same issue there.

That is perhaps my bias against Texas programs. They seem to get golden tickets the second they show a pulse. UTSA was dreadful for years before they finally figured it out and we're gone the second they did. I would have much preferred them to be good the whole time. Everyone is CUSA is a flight risk, and UMass would be too, but there seems to be a constant pressure of Texas being the place everyone wants a foothold in. There isn't the same pressure for programs in the North East.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Everyone seems to want teams in Texas and not in the NE, so we should avoid teams in Texas and go for teams in the NE?

Instead of maybe evaluating why this is the case? Or just evaluating each team on its own.



















(Or maybe not taking on any more at all :) )

If you evaluate any of these schools on their own, you put them in the conference immediately. Maybe you make a little less money in the short term but the long-term benefits are big. These are major conference caliber programs.

They meet all the conference's criteria. These schools are long term investments that will pay off.

(12-06-2023 11:25 AM)freshtop Wrote:  That is perhaps my bias against Texas programs. They seem to get golden tickets the second they show a pulse. UTSA was dreadful for years before they finally figured it out and we're gone the second they did. I would have much preferred them to be good the whole time. Everyone is CUSA is a flight risk, and UMass would be too, but there seems to be a constant pressure of Texas being the place everyone wants a foothold in. There isn't the same pressure for programs in the North East.

There may possibly be a slight difference between schools located in places like Dallas-Ft Worth (pop. 6.3 million) and San Antonio (pop. 2.6 million) versus places like Huntsville (pop. 47,277) and Stephenville (pop. 21,199).

I mean, I'm no conference official or network executive, but if I squint really hard and really put my thinking cap on, I can almost perceive that they're not the same.

(12-06-2023 12:00 PM)whupemall Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 11:25 AM)freshtop Wrote:  That is perhaps my bias against Texas programs. They seem to get golden tickets the second they show a pulse. UTSA was dreadful for years before they finally figured it out and we're gone the second they did. I would have much preferred them to be good the whole time. Everyone is CUSA is a flight risk, and UMass would be too, but there seems to be a constant pressure of Texas being the place everyone wants a foothold in. There isn't the same pressure for programs in the North East.

There may possibly be a slight difference between schools located in places like Dallas-Ft Worth (pop. 6.3 million) and San Antonio (pop. 2.6 million) versus places like Huntsville (pop. 47,277) and Stephenville (pop. 21,199).

I mean, I'm no conference official or network executive, but if I squint really hard and really put my thinking cap on, I can almost perceive that they're not the same.

As compared to what? Kennesaw State? New Mexico State? All of this is about potential. None of it is happening without opportunity.

If you were going to invest $1,000 in a program for any schools in the conference or potential members, where would you put your money to get the best investment return assuming they all start in CUSA.

1. UMass
2. Delaware
3. Tarleton State
4. Missouri State

Liberty will be more profitable for other reasons.

(12-06-2023 11:49 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 11:25 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 10:35 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 09:59 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 07:58 AM)RustonBulldog Wrote:  Tarleton is a school everyone other conference would laugh at us for and then in five years go “Oh ****, those guys are really good”

Texas A&M is pouring money into that school.

So it would be like UTSA. We would babysit them for a couple years and just as they get good they leave. Hard pass.

If we invite someone, we want them to be good. If you don't want another school to compete with for the next round of realignment, the better option is not to invite anyone at all.

I don't see the potential for UMass that y'all apparently do, but if it remotely came to pass, you'd have the same issue there.

That is perhaps my bias against Texas programs. They seem to get golden tickets the second they show a pulse. UTSA was dreadful for years before they finally figured it out and we're gone the second they did. I would have much preferred them to be good the whole time. Everyone is CUSA is a flight risk, and UMass would be too, but there seems to be a constant pressure of Texas being the place everyone wants a foothold in. There isn't the same pressure for programs in the North East.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Everyone seems to want teams in Texas and not in the NE, so we should avoid teams in Texas and go for teams in the NE?

Instead of maybe evaluating why this is the case? Or just evaluating each team on its own.



















(Or maybe not taking on any more at all :) )

If we are taking 11, might as well make it 12. Staying at 9 or 10 for a bit was my #1 choice, but I understand others feeling there is more safety in 12 (and maybe more media money too, who knows).

I think in a vacuum I would rather have UMass than Tarleton. Despite their struggles, they are already FBS, and have a pretty strong hoops tradition. They are less likely to require training wheels.

Tarleton is more likely to need multiple years to be competitive, and also more likely to find an exit from the conference once they are competitive. If we are "stuck" in CUSA (and it seems like we are barring a collapse of the ACC), then I would just assume have some stability so we can grow together vs. being the daycare for callups to pass us by simply for existing in a state that the MWC wants in and the AAC wants to keep them out of.

(12-06-2023 12:15 PM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 11:49 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 11:25 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 10:35 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 09:59 AM)freshtop Wrote:  So it would be like UTSA. We would babysit them for a couple years and just as they get good they leave. Hard pass.

If we invite someone, we want them to be good. If you don't want another school to compete with for the next round of realignment, the better option is not to invite anyone at all.

I don't see the potential for UMass that y'all apparently do, but if it remotely came to pass, you'd have the same issue there.

That is perhaps my bias against Texas programs. They seem to get golden tickets the second they show a pulse. UTSA was dreadful for years before they finally figured it out and we're gone the second they did. I would have much preferred them to be good the whole time. Everyone is CUSA is a flight risk, and UMass would be too, but there seems to be a constant pressure of Texas being the place everyone wants a foothold in. There isn't the same pressure for programs in the North East.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Everyone seems to want teams in Texas and not in the NE, so we should avoid teams in Texas and go for teams in the NE?

Instead of maybe evaluating why this is the case? Or just evaluating each team on its own.



















(Or maybe not taking on any more at all :) )

If we are taking 11, might as well make it 12. Staying at 10 for a bit was my #1 choice, but I understand others feeling there is more safety in 12 (and maybe more media money too, who knows).

I think in a vacuum I would rather have UMass than Tarleton. Despite their struggles, they are already FBS, and have a pretty strong hoops tradition. They are less likely to require training wheels.

Tarleton is more likely to need multiple years to be competitive, and also more likely to find an exit from the conference once they are competitive. If we are "stuck" in CUSA (and it seems like we are barring a collapse of the ACC), then I would just assume have some stability so we can grow together vs. being the daycare for callups to pass us by simply for existing in a state that the MWC wants in and the AAC wants to keep them out of.

You have to look at it by who is going to be the most attractive to people paying money for the games. That is what they are looking for. The main reason CUSA gets any money is just to keep them in house. They don't want them pursuing something with Amazon and maybe reinventing conference revenue. They pay for potential. That is why the AAC makes so much money. They are not any better than CUSA but they have more potential.

(12-06-2023 12:20 PM)R40 Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 12:15 PM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 11:49 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 11:25 AM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 10:35 AM)inutech Wrote:  If we invite someone, we want them to be good. If you don't want another school to compete with for the next round of realignment, the better option is not to invite anyone at all.

I don't see the potential for UMass that y'all apparently do, but if it remotely came to pass, you'd have the same issue there.

That is perhaps my bias against Texas programs. They seem to get golden tickets the second they show a pulse. UTSA was dreadful for years before they finally figured it out and we're gone the second they did. I would have much preferred them to be good the whole time. Everyone is CUSA is a flight risk, and UMass would be too, but there seems to be a constant pressure of Texas being the place everyone wants a foothold in. There isn't the same pressure for programs in the North East.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Everyone seems to want teams in Texas and not in the NE, so we should avoid teams in Texas and go for teams in the NE?

Instead of maybe evaluating why this is the case? Or just evaluating each team on its own.



















(Or maybe not taking on any more at all :) )

If we are taking 11, might as well make it 12. Staying at 10 for a bit was my #1 choice, but I understand others feeling there is more safety in 12 (and maybe more media money too, who knows).

I think in a vacuum I would rather have UMass than Tarleton. Despite their struggles, they are already FBS, and have a pretty strong hoops tradition. They are less likely to require training wheels.

Tarleton is more likely to need multiple years to be competitive, and also more likely to find an exit from the conference once they are competitive. If we are "stuck" in CUSA (and it seems like we are barring a collapse of the ACC), then I would just assume have some stability so we can grow together vs. being the daycare for callups to pass us by simply for existing in a state that the MWC wants in and the AAC wants to keep them out of.

You have to look at it by who is going to be the most attractive to people paying money for the games. That is what they are looking for. The main reason CUSA gets any money is just to keep them in house. They don't want them pursuing something with Amazon and maybe reinventing conference revenue. They pay for potential. That is why the AAC makes so much money. They are not any better than CUSA but they have more potential.

The AAC gets paid what they do because the deal was signed off the backs of programs no longer in the conference or on their way out (UConn, UCF, Cincy, Houston, SMU). I don't see a snowball's chance in hell that anyone left there gets close to 7 mil per year when it comes due unless inflation really spirals out of control between now and then (possible).

(12-06-2023 12:30 PM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 12:20 PM)R40 Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 12:15 PM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 11:49 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 11:25 AM)freshtop Wrote:  That is perhaps my bias against Texas programs. They seem to get golden tickets the second they show a pulse. UTSA was dreadful for years before they finally figured it out and we're gone the second they did. I would have much preferred them to be good the whole time. Everyone is CUSA is a flight risk, and UMass would be too, but there seems to be a constant pressure of Texas being the place everyone wants a foothold in. There isn't the same pressure for programs in the North East.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Everyone seems to want teams in Texas and not in the NE, so we should avoid teams in Texas and go for teams in the NE?

Instead of maybe evaluating why this is the case? Or just evaluating each team on its own.



















(Or maybe not taking on any more at all :) )

If we are taking 11, might as well make it 12. Staying at 10 for a bit was my #1 choice, but I understand others feeling there is more safety in 12 (and maybe more media money too, who knows).

I think in a vacuum I would rather have UMass than Tarleton. Despite their struggles, they are already FBS, and have a pretty strong hoops tradition. They are less likely to require training wheels.

Tarleton is more likely to need multiple years to be competitive, and also more likely to find an exit from the conference once they are competitive. If we are "stuck" in CUSA (and it seems like we are barring a collapse of the ACC), then I would just assume have some stability so we can grow together vs. being the daycare for callups to pass us by simply for existing in a state that the MWC wants in and the AAC wants to keep them out of.

You have to look at it by who is going to be the most attractive to people paying money for the games. That is what they are looking for. The main reason CUSA gets any money is just to keep them in house. They don't want them pursuing something with Amazon and maybe reinventing conference revenue. They pay for potential. That is why the AAC makes so much money. They are not any better than CUSA but they have more potential.

The AAC gets paid what they do because the deal was signed off the backs of programs no longer in the conference or on their way out (UConn, UCF, Cincy, Houston, SMU). I don't see a snowball's chance in hell that anyone left there gets close to 7 mil per year when it comes due unless inflation really spirals out of control between now and then (possible).

True enough. But those programs were made by the conference. They took their TV and their potential and did something with it. They would not have done it in CUSA. The conference and ESPN gave them a chance to build something and they did.

That is what you do with the schools moving up. You give them a chance. They take the money and invest it in the program and they build the conference.

(12-06-2023 11:36 AM)EatEmUp11 Wrote:  Football attendance with prospective expansion candidates

1. JSU (20,033)
2. LU (18,911)
*Tarleton (18,697)
3. UTEP (18,160)
4. LaTech (15,796)
5. WKU (15,710)
#Delaware (15,564)
6. FIU (15,290)
7. NMSU (14,847)
8. MTSU (13,219)
*EKU (11,655)
*UMass (10,597)
*MSU (9,143)
9. SHSU (8,298)
*SFA (8,100)
#KSU (7,857)

*-expansion candidate
#-future member

We had terrible luck and weather for the first 4 games, including band day. During November, general cold and lower turn out, had higher than the average numbers. 14,672 and during Thanksgiving break without students, 12,291. Watch for higher numbers next year! Think we should have our first sellout since our MAC home opener on campus. Consider how bad and long we've been, that's only hard core fan numbers. With a little success, we should see sell outs and talk of additional stadium improvements/expansion. Standing room tickets have been discussed and the thought was in front of the Performance Center.

(12-06-2023 12:15 PM)freshtop Wrote:  If we are taking 11, might as well make it 12.

You don't have to accept this reasoning.

Also, if we invite a program you don't like, and then they leave - that's a good thing! You don't share a conference with them anymore! Especially if it's a decision made on market-size. At worst, it's meh. This is why the GOR wasn't worth it. Who are you crying about if they left? Just MTSU, right?

(12-06-2023 01:05 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 12:15 PM)freshtop Wrote:  If we are taking 11, might as well make it 12.

You don't have to accept this reasoning.

Also, if we invite a program you don't like, and then they leave - that's a good thing! You don't share a conference with them anymore! Especially if it's a decision made on market-size. At worst, it's meh. This is why the GOR wasn't worth it. Who are you crying about if they left? Just MTSU, right?

Honestly no one and everyone. I am not super attached to any program anymore, MTSU included, but I detest the idea of the conference becoming a revolving door of FCS callups.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12-06-2023 01:09 PM)freshtop Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 01:05 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(12-06-2023 12:15 PM)freshtop Wrote:  If we are taking 11, might as well make it 12.

You don't have to accept this reasoning.

Also, if we invite a program you don't like, and then they leave - that's a good thing! You don't share a conference with them anymore! Especially if it's a decision made on market-size. At worst, it's meh. This is why the GOR wasn't worth it. Who are you crying about if they left? Just MTSU, right?

Honestly no one and everyone. I am not super attached to any program anymore, MTSU included, but I detest the idea of the conference becoming a revolving door of FCS callups.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But unless you think CUSA makes the right calls all the time, departures (or schools declining invitations) can save us from ourselves (or maybe be worse for the conference but better for your school).



And a team coming in that you don't care to share a conference with (or at the least, don't care one way or the other about) is actually less bad if you think they might not be in your conference very long. This is actually something applicable to the whole situation. Anyone would leave, and it's possible another big realignment happens. That might be a good thing!


If someone left tomorrow, we'd be back to ten schools. I would view that as a positive on the whole. More or less positive depending on who it was, but probably a net positive. I don't think the conference commissioner would see it that way, but we clearly have different priorities (I don't care what she thinks just like she doesn't care what I think).