CSNbbs

From The Toledo Blade.

http://www.toledoblade.com/DaveHackenber...nment.html

The problem with CUSA is they have repeatedly stretched the footprint further than what it needed to be.

Take for example the decision to add UTEP or Marshall. In hindsight did any of those additions make sense for CUSA? Imagine the geography if they were both gone.

East: ODU, ECU, Charlotte, UAB, FIU, So. Miss
West: La Tech, Tulane, Tulsa, UNT, Rice, UTSA

I would say the problem is less that MAC schools aren't finding their way to CUSA as much as Marshall is in the wrong conference.

(05-20-2012 09:35 AM)Louis Kitton Wrote: [ -> ]The problem with CUSA is they have repeatedly stretched the footprint further than what it needed to be.

Take for example the decision to add UTEP or Marshall. In hindsight did any of those additions make sense for CUSA? Imagine the geography if they were both gone.

East: ODU, ECU, Charlotte, UAB, FIU, So. Miss
West: La Tech, Tulane, Tulsa, UNT, Rice, UTSA

I would say the problem is less that MAC schools aren't finding their way to CUSA as much as Marshall is in the wrong conference.

It's pretty clear that Cusa will not be pulling the huge tv revenues they were talking abot five months ago...

For a good laugh check out this picture depicting the old CUSA vs the new CUSA on the Texas State Board:

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=570994

He hits on the same point I've made in post threads on C-USA expansion..why are they so desperate to expand at the expense of the overall quality of football, which was supposedly "driving the bus" in past C-USA decision-making. They will be a far weaker football conference when these newbies join. And many of their schools have nothing in common, and of course the geography is brutal.

The MAC is winning this round of conference realignment. I'm encouraged by what I've seen and heard so far.

If we can land Delaware to replace Temple, the MAC is actually stronger than before considering we also have UMass. We will have expanded our brand firmly into the Northeast with little competition from other non-aq conferences and even the aq teams there are not that impressive (Rutgers, UConn, Syracuse (football)

MWC has been knocked down hard and sagarins now indicate the MAC is now ahead of them. We also just went 3-0 vs the MWC in bowls.

CUSA is also now behind us in terms of quality programs and the new additions of UTSA, UNCC, and Sun Belt teams are not impressive. MAC wins.

Steinbrecher is hinting that our TV brand is growing and getting stronger while CUSA's TV deal is weakening. We will be on even footing in terms of TV money very shortly.

With the new 7 win rule for bowls, CUSA will lose a few bowls and the MAC at the very least should keep 3 bowl tie-ins, but Im optimistic for a fourth bowl. CUSA will no longer hold a bowl advantage.

There are three quality programs left in CUSA in East Carolina, Tulsa, and Southern Miss and if any of them our raided out of CUSA during another shakeup with the ACC and Big East then CUSA is nothing more than the Sun Belt plain and simple. I don't see CUSA getting any kind of serious TV contract at all.

All in all, I feel the MAC could come through the other side the big winner here.

(05-20-2012 10:52 AM)ManzanoWolf Wrote: [ -> ]For a good laugh check out this picture depicting the old CUSA vs the new CUSA on the Texas State Board:

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=570994

Let me save you some clicks if I can

(05-20-2012 02:15 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote: [ -> ]The MAC is winning this round of conference realignment. I'm encouraged by what I've seen and heard so far.

If we can land Delaware to replace Temple, the MAC is actually stronger than before considering we also have UMass. We will have expanded our brand firmly into the Northeast with little competition from other non-aq conferences and even the aq teams there are not that impressive (Rutgers, UConn, Syracuse (football)

MWC has been knocked down hard and sagarins now indicate the MAC is now ahead of them. We also just went 3-0 vs the MWC in bowls.

CUSA is also now behind us in terms of quality programs and the new additions of UTSA, UNCC, and Sun Belt teams are not impressive. MAC wins.

Steinbrecher is hinting that our TV brand is growing and getting stronger while CUSA's TV deal is weakening. We will be on even footing in terms of TV money very shortly.

With the new 7 win rule for bowls, CUSA will lose a few bowls and the MAC at the very least should keep 3 bowl tie-ins, but Im optimistic for a fourth bowl. CUSA will no longer hold a bowl advantage.

There are three quality programs left in CUSA in East Carolina, Tulsa, and Southern Miss and if any of them our raided out of CUSA during another shakeup with the ACC and Big East then CUSA is nothing more than the Sun Belt plain and simple. I don't see CUSA getting any kind of serious TV contract at all.

All in all, I feel the MAC could come through the other side the big winner here.

The MAC also doesn't have equal revenue sharing like CUSA so the top teams in the MAC make out better financially.

Every MAC school appearing in a conference sponsored bowl game is cut a 400,000 dollar check by the league office.

How many times has the CUSA lineup changed radically since its inception?

1) 1995 inception and build up over a 5 year period with Houston, East Carolina, Army, TCU coming in.
2) 2005 switch out of TCU, DePaul, Marquette, Cincinnati, Louisville, St. Louis, Charlotte, South Florida, Army for Marshall, Central Florida, SMU, Tulsa, Rice and UTEP
3) 2013 switch out of Central Florida, Memphis, SMU, Houston for UTSA, La Tech, North Texas, FIU, Charlotte, Old Dominion

The conference has been remodeled 3 times since 1995. The only founding members that remain are Tulane, Southern Miss, UAB, Charlotte (we're back).

CUSA has no identity.

(05-20-2012 07:36 AM)SylvaniaRocket Wrote: [ -> ]From The Toledo Blade.

http://www.toledoblade.com/DaveHackenber...nment.html

Let's suppose Toledo/Akron leave as urban schools to CUSA and the MAC is left to reload with JMU, ASU

West: NIU, BSU, WMU, CMU, EMU, BGSU
East: MU, OU, KSU, UB, ASU, JMU

Do you think anybody in the MAC left behind would be crying? It would actually be an upgrade for the league eliminating the duplicate market problem in NW Ohio/NE Ohio.

Every school in the conference would be a residential campus in a small town setting making the league even more cohesive.

I had always thought back in the day the MAC was too big at 13 schools when most other conferences were 10-12. Now with most FBS conferences in the 12-14 school range a 12 team MAC looks lean by comparison.

(05-20-2012 01:50 PM)exCincy Kid Wrote: [ -> ]He hits on the same point I've made in post threads on C-USA expansion..why are they so desperate to expand at the expense of the overall quality of football, which was supposedly "driving the bus" in past C-USA decision-making. They will be a far weaker football conference when these newbies join. And many of their schools have nothing in common, and of course the geography is brutal.

The geography got much less brutal for C-USA. I don't disagree with you in the least about the overall quality of football, it got a lot worse for the foreseeable future, but the geography got better for every school other than FIU. ECU went from only having 1 team in it's immediate area to 3. UTEP got the closest possible Texas school to them and now have a school in every major city in the state. La Tech tightens geography among the core of the conference. No conference has the desire to be as tight as the MAC is, but for the most part C-USA got much more manageable from a travel standpoint.

(05-20-2012 06:16 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-20-2012 01:50 PM)exCincy Kid Wrote: [ -> ]He hits on the same point I've made in post threads on C-USA expansion..why are they so desperate to expand at the expense of the overall quality of football, which was supposedly "driving the bus" in past C-USA decision-making. They will be a far weaker football conference when these newbies join. And many of their schools have nothing in common, and of course the geography is brutal.

The geography got much less brutal for C-USA. I don't disagree with you in the least about the overall quality of football, it got a lot worse for the foreseeable future, but the geography got better for every school other than FIU. ECU went from only having 1 team in it's immediate area to 3. UTEP got the closest possible Texas school to them and now have a school in every major city in the state. La Tech tightens geography among the core of the conference. No conference has the desire to be as tight as the MAC is, but for the most part C-USA got much more manageable from a travel standpoint.

As far as travel, it is apparent that ECU was calling the shots on who got in and they all were to ECU's benefit. ECU was the big winner in the CUSA expansion.

(05-20-2012 07:12 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-20-2012 06:16 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-20-2012 01:50 PM)exCincy Kid Wrote: [ -> ]He hits on the same point I've made in post threads on C-USA expansion..why are they so desperate to expand at the expense of the overall quality of football, which was supposedly "driving the bus" in past C-USA decision-making. They will be a far weaker football conference when these newbies join. And many of their schools have nothing in common, and of course the geography is brutal.

The geography got much less brutal for C-USA. I don't disagree with you in the least about the overall quality of football, it got a lot worse for the foreseeable future, but the geography got better for every school other than FIU. ECU went from only having 1 team in it's immediate area to 3. UTEP got the closest possible Texas school to them and now have a school in every major city in the state. La Tech tightens geography among the core of the conference. No conference has the desire to be as tight as the MAC is, but for the most part C-USA got much more manageable from a travel standpoint.

As far as travel, it is apparent that ECU was calling the shots on who got in and they all were to ECU's benefit. ECU was the big winner in the CUSA expansion.

I would far from agree with that. From what I have been told from someone who would certainly know we didn't really want FIU and UTSA, and preferred App to Charlotte. The only one we got that we really did want was ODU, who Holland had to push extremely hard to even consider the move up. They weren't even considering making the move until less than a month ago at the urging of Terry Holland, who has a long standing relationship with their AD. Either way to say ECU got everyone they wanted or was the big winner in this is far from true.

Why would ECU want more recruiting competition in an already saturated market?

it not over yet

(05-20-2012 02:15 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote: [ -> ]All in all, I feel the MAC could come through the other side the big winner here.

IF we make a move. Otherwise, it's like saying that you won a game of poker by sitting it out.

If the MAC does nothing, they may find themselves a step up or two in the college sports heirarchy in the short term, but they will fall back again as the other conferences who are taking risks start seeing dividends. Not all will succeed, but some will. The MWC will recover the quickest and will see new strength and power emerging soon. The Sun Belt will continue to slowly build strength and cohesiveness, even if they don't make any more moves. C-USA's predicament is concerning, they are taking the biggest gamble here, but it also could pay the highest dividends if they are lucky. I don't think they'll hit on all their gambles, but they couls also move back out ahead of us.

The MAC's unwillingness to make a move, hoping that everyone else will just fall behind them and stay there, is just as short-sighted as C-USA handing out invites like candy to any school buried in a top 15 market.

We need to make a few investments to ensure that we grow too. JMU would be the safest bet for the short and long-term. App State gives us an immediate boost, but might not have as much long-term growth potential. Delaware is something that would pay off nicely down the road, but might not bring as much to the table immediately. Take those three and you alter the conference landscape and make the best moves out of any of the non-BCS conferences.

(05-21-2012 12:32 AM)Big_Man Wrote: [ -> ]Why would ECU want more recruiting competition in an already saturated market?

Because ECU has one of the highest travel budgets of any school in the country, and if we are never going to be playing in a big boy conference, (which considering the Big East is about to no longer be one I'd say yes we never are going to be) we gotta start cutting that travel expense back. ODU and Charlotte help that out greatly.

Yes, I see the new additions helping ECU from a travel perspective with East and West divisions presumably in play. If you'll forgive me, though..after all the "chest thumping" we've seen from many a C-USA poster before about how much better C-USA football is than WAC, SunBelt and MAC it is rather humorous to see those same posters already proclaiming the "new" C-USA to be better than ever with a bunch of Div IA wannabe's.....I mean really?? Yeah, I see the geograhy angle, and maybe hoops to some degree, but C-USA's Sagarins are coming right down the MAC after this next round of additions unless the MAC also brings in more IA newbies.

Our MAC AD's need to get on the phone ASAP to schedule some tasty cream-puff CUSA wins.

(05-21-2012 10:16 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote: [ -> ]Our MAC AD's need to get on the phone ASAP to schedule some tasty cream-puff CUSA wins.

+1!

No kidding! I like this idea.

Get UTSA, UNCC, North Texas, Old Dominion on the future schedule ASAP and get read to tee-off on CUSA !! LOL

(05-21-2012 10:12 AM)exCincy Kid Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I see the new additions helping ECU from a travel perspective with East and West divisions presumably in play. If you'll forgive me, though..after all the "chest thumping" we've seen from many a C-USA poster before about how much better C-USA football is than WAC, SunBelt and MAC it is rather humorous to see those same posters already proclaiming the "new" C-USA to be better than ever with a bunch of Div IA wannabe's.....I mean really?? Yeah, I see the geograhy angle, and maybe hoops to some degree, but C-USA's Sagarins are coming right down the MAC after this next round of additions unless the MAC also brings in more IA newbies.

I'm assuming you guys have seen mostly chest thumping from Marshall fans, although plenty of others have been doing the same. Either way once the merger pretty much died it became clear C-USA was going to take a big step back in the short term. I am however glad that the league was willing to add some FCS teams. I think the long term potential of the FCS teams is higher than that of the FBS teams we added, but you've gotta be willing to take a big hit in perception for at least 5-7 years to see the benefits. It looks like we decided we were going to take that hit anyway no matter who we added so we might as well add the schools with the highest ceilings. Now personally I'd have rather had App or JMU than Charlotte, but we didn't have enough pull to make that happen.