(07-25-2014 10:18 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 10:00 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 09:21 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 08:58 AM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  How much more wealthy is CUSA than the SBC?

In what sense? Schools themselves or the conference?

The conferences.

CUSA charges members more for annual membership than the SBC and we have more teams paying that membership fee...not to mention lots of cash left behind by Memphis and other schools when they left, so I'd say that CUSA probably has considerably more money than the SBC. That may change a few years down the road, but I can't imagine the SBC has nearly as much in its coffers right now as CUSA does.

Just a guess though, I don't have hard numbers or anything.

Memphis simply applied our NCAA credits towards the exit fee...leaving CUSA ended up being pretty easy, actually.

http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/I...mphis.aspx

But you did have to pay to leave and THAT money is gone.

(07-25-2014 12:57 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 12:52 PM)rknj8993 Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 12:17 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 12:06 PM)rknj8993 Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 12:01 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  IF the Big 12 does decide to add others they have many choices other than a Sun Belt team.

BYU, Cincy, USF, UCF, ECU, Memphis, and so on. The closer to West Virginia probably the better.

So I'm not sure why any Sun Belt school would be banking on the Big 12.

CUSA has no reason to go back to 14 if they lose a couple and they might just as easily grab JMU and Delaware if they did.

You're joking, right? Why would CUSA want two programs that are already within their footprint that also have to transition rather than two programs with winning records? On top of that, why would CUSA want two more programs at all? 12 is optimal, not 14, 16, or anywhere in between.

1) Yeah you right, why would anyone want programs already in their footprint! Maybe Idaho would make more sense.

2) You are slamming me about 12 being optimal when I specifically said in my post that they have no reason to go back to 14! smh

You said that JMU and UD would be options for them. Yes, this is true, but why would they want to choose two FCS transition programs over two already-FBS programs? Why would they want to add two new programs, at all? That's my point.

Why did they choose Charlotte, who had no football team yet, over UL or stAte or WKU? Why did the AAC choose Tulane? Why was ODU chosen over stAte and UL? Why did they choose LaTech over UL which has a bigger market? They had their reasons and they weren't the ones everyone necessarily expected.

People insist they know what conferences are going to do in conference realignment and they don't.

Tulane has the market (New Orleans), budget (over 30 million), endowment (over 1 billion), and academics to be included in the AAC.

Moreover, they're building this:

(07-27-2014 01:20 PM)CajunExpress Wrote:  But you did have to pay to leave and THAT money is gone.

We had to leave the credits behind either way...we got off the hook for 6.6 million in exit fees.

(07-27-2014 03:49 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 12:51 AM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 09:56 PM)winston70 Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 03:17 PM)zeebart21 Wrote:  Bottom line. UL will be highly successful no matter what conference we are in. We finally, after an eternity, have people in place that get it. I am not speaking to A-state or Tx State, South Al or others that have potential, and aspire to better things. I am strictly speaking about UL.
I have no problem with CUSA as we are as good or better than any athletic program in CUSA. I have no problem with AAC or Mnt West as we could compete very favorably in those conferences as well. I am for Louisiana. Its every man for himself. I wish everyone in CUSA as well as the SBC, AAC and Mnt West much luck.

Z

Really - you have a better program than USM or La Tech?

Better than Louisiana Tech right now today! Louisiana Tech has been to two bowls since 2008, UL has won three straight bowl games. Louisiana Tech has been to 6 total bowls and won only two games. UL has won more bowl games in three years then Tech has won in its history. Neither of us have Southern Miss's tradition, they competed in 15 consecutive bowl games. Don't even compare yourself to the program in Hattiesburg.

The bottom line is that La Tech's program is good enough to have gotten us into CUSA over UL-L. Of course, five other schools can say the same thing.

Yes, because Tech was willing to pay the 1 mil. entry fee and UL was not at the time. But that move has stretched the Tech athletic budget so much that coach Simoneaux was only allowed to have 8 scholarships for baseball per year! Great program indeed.

(07-27-2014 01:22 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Tulane has the market (New Orleans), budget (over 30 million), endowment (over 1 billion), and academics to be included in the AAC.

Moreover, they're building this:

Ok. Like I said, conferences have their reasons and they don't always make the decisions fans insist they will make. Which was my point.

Tulane is an excellent example because sports fans did not really think they were seriously on the table for AAC due to past performance on the field and some of the worst attendance in FBS. But they were.

(07-27-2014 01:22 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 12:57 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 12:52 PM)rknj8993 Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 12:17 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 12:06 PM)rknj8993 Wrote:  You're joking, right? Why would CUSA want two programs that are already within their footprint that also have to transition rather than two programs with winning records? On top of that, why would CUSA want two more programs at all? 12 is optimal, not 14, 16, or anywhere in between.

1) Yeah you right, why would anyone want programs already in their footprint! Maybe Idaho would make more sense.

2) You are slamming me about 12 being optimal when I specifically said in my post that they have no reason to go back to 14! smh

You said that JMU and UD would be options for them. Yes, this is true, but why would they want to choose two FCS transition programs over two already-FBS programs? Why would they want to add two new programs, at all? That's my point.

Why did they choose Charlotte, who had no football team yet, over UL or stAte or WKU? Why did the AAC choose Tulane? Why was ODU chosen over stAte and UL? Why did they choose LaTech over UL which has a bigger market? They had their reasons and they weren't the ones everyone necessarily expected.

People insist they know what conferences are going to do in conference realignment and they don't.

Tulane has the market (New Orleans), budget (over 30 million), endowment (over 1 billion), and academics to be included in the AAC.

Moreover, they're building this:

the stadium looks nice but for as much money as they spent on it you would think they could've gotten it a little bigger

(07-27-2014 01:34 PM)techdawg88 Wrote:  the stadium looks nice but for as much money as they spent on it you would think they could've gotten it a little bigger

Entering into this world of declining attendance for college football and increase in the number of outlets for televised games, I think its wiser for schools to concentrate more on quality of the experience over number of seats. I don't think Tulane has a proven need for a large stadium at this point.

(07-27-2014 01:38 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 01:34 PM)techdawg88 Wrote:  the stadium looks nice but for as much money as they spent on it you would think they could've gotten it a little bigger

Entering into this world of declining attendance for college football and increase in the number of outlets for televised games, I think its wiser for schools to concentrate more on quality of the experience over number of seats. I don't think Tulane has a proven need for a large stadium at this point.

good point, but even if the need arises it looks like it will be difficult to add new seats unless they plan on getting rid of some of those buildings

(07-27-2014 01:34 PM)techdawg88 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 01:22 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 12:57 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 12:52 PM)rknj8993 Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 12:17 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  1) Yeah you right, why would anyone want programs already in their footprint! Maybe Idaho would make more sense.

2) You are slamming me about 12 being optimal when I specifically said in my post that they have no reason to go back to 14! smh

You said that JMU and UD would be options for them. Yes, this is true, but why would they want to choose two FCS transition programs over two already-FBS programs? Why would they want to add two new programs, at all? That's my point.

Why did they choose Charlotte, who had no football team yet, over UL or stAte or WKU? Why did the AAC choose Tulane? Why was ODU chosen over stAte and UL? Why did they choose LaTech over UL which has a bigger market? They had their reasons and they weren't the ones everyone necessarily expected.

People insist they know what conferences are going to do in conference realignment and they don't.

Tulane has the market (New Orleans), budget (over 30 million), endowment (over 1 billion), and academics to be included in the AAC.

Moreover, they're building this:

the stadium looks nice but for as much money as they spent on it you would think they could've gotten it a little bigger

75 million isn't that much, and 27,000 (plus 3,000 SRO) is perfect size for Tulane...notice how the stadium backs right up to neighboring houses.

(07-25-2014 06:55 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 06:42 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 06:36 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  I will say this. In 13 years I can't recall a USM fan coming around insisting that I accept the inherent superiority of CUSA or USM. This during a time when USM WAS actually the envy of the G5.

In the last 6 months we've had what...a horde...of CUSA newbies insisting we accept that we are inherently inferior and are doomed due to their patch.

I suggest that a lot of people need to grow up....on their board hopefully.

No one is trying to insist you do anything...

you can be as wrong as you want to be. As a matter of fact if you would stop jumping into conversations no one is pulling you into. Well ...

So 2014 - 2007 is 13years?

I'll jump into any conversation I want on my own conference's board. I don't need an invite.

Of course you don't and guess what...

neither do I because no matter how hard you try to be Barney Fife...

you're nothing so try as you might....

stop trying to tell other people what to do.

(07-27-2014 02:49 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 06:55 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 06:42 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 06:36 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  I will say this. In 13 years I can't recall a USM fan coming around insisting that I accept the inherent superiority of CUSA or USM. This during a time when USM WAS actually the envy of the G5.

In the last 6 months we've had what...a horde...of CUSA newbies insisting we accept that we are inherently inferior and are doomed due to their patch.

I suggest that a lot of people need to grow up....on their board hopefully.

No one is trying to insist you do anything...

you can be as wrong as you want to be. As a matter of fact if you would stop jumping into conversations no one is pulling you into. Well ...

So 2014 - 2007 is 13years?

I'll jump into any conversation I want on my own conference's board. I don't need an invite.

Of course you don't and guess what...

neither do I because no matter how hard you try to be Barney Fife...

you're nothing so try as you might....

stop trying to tell other people what to do.

(07-27-2014 02:49 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 06:55 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 06:42 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 06:36 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  I will say this. In 13 years I can't recall a USM fan coming around insisting that I accept the inherent superiority of CUSA or USM. This during a time when USM WAS actually the envy of the G5.

In the last 6 months we've had what...a horde...of CUSA newbies insisting we accept that we are inherently inferior and are doomed due to their patch.

I suggest that a lot of people need to grow up....on their board hopefully.

No one is trying to insist you do anything...

you can be as wrong as you want to be. As a matter of fact if you would stop jumping into conversations no one is pulling you into. Well ...

So 2014 - 2007 is 13years?

I'll jump into any conversation I want on my own conference's board. I don't need an invite.

Of course you don't and guess what...

neither do I because no matter how hard you try to be Barney Fife...

you're nothing so try as you might....

stop trying to tell other people what to do.

BTW if you don't want to believe the SBC was a good conference last year...

that's up to you.

Because basically that was what I said. I said the SBC was a avg conference last year while the MAC and CUSA had a ton of bottom feeders. And because the SBC was "avg" that's why the SBC was rated the top of the G4.

(07-27-2014 07:26 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 08:08 PM)CivilEng Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 06:50 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 05:21 PM)CivilEng Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 05:15 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  Ah yes, I was going to do just this comparison for Civil Eng but you saved me the work, thanks! So, it looks to me that no matter how you slice it, SBC teams have consistently performed better than C-USA teams on the football field over the last few years.

I didn't realize there were only 4 teams in the SB.

Typical lack of comprehension shown by the other civil engineers I have come in contact with over the years.

Please enlighten us as to what is your profession. This is the first time someone makes an attempt to talk down on an engineer. Atleast to me. By the way, look at all the statistics and records thrown around on this thread and try to find any consistency. I only see cherry picking.

I sell to the construction industry. Primarily veneered masonry products and at one time high tech flooring products and systems from Germany. I deal with architects and engineers all the time. I've never met one who has ever been wrong, or would admit it when it was proven to them.

App,your just making yourself look bad running a guy down for being an engineer.......

(07-27-2014 12:07 PM)panite Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 07:07 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 07:04 AM)GeauxUL Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 06:54 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  CUSA would reverse expand to 12 if they could. As they payouts continue to surge, the two extra teams will eventually cost the other teams $1 million or more.

I hope you really don't believe that. And if the SBC could take on Missouri state and JMU which puts us at 14, I sure hope they do it.

If MoSt and JMU accepted, we would be at 13 at which time Idaho would be dropped to get us to the magic number of 12. The key now is to have solid football programs that help you rank higher in the payout and can potentially reap the financial windfall of the top G5 program selected in the bowl.

If the Sunbelt drops Idaho they can be the travel partner with BYU to the AAC for FB only when BYU joins that conference. Or they can join the MWC with BYU if Thompson can out sell Aresco again like he did when he held on to Boise and SDSU.

I can make a case for JMU based on their success at the FCS level, their attendance and the size of their athletic budget. They have a solid FCS football program and seem ready to make the move.

But if the key is "to have solid programs that help you rank higher in the payout", then I don't see how Missouri State accomplishes that. They struggle at the FCS level.

Idaho is here through 2017. If they win in the Sun Belt, they will stay. If they lose and there is a solid FCS candidate available, then they could be gone. But the AAC would not be interested in Idaho at all and Idaho brings nothing to the MWC that they need. No market, no decent basketball program, not even a baseball program. If the SBC ever decided to ask Idaho to leave because of poor performance, no other league is going to accept them.

Favor.Can we not use the label "mid-major" football? IMHO it is degrading to any school or conference.Thankyou.

Unless the conference championship bill does not pass doubt the SBC is adding
anyone anytime soon, but hard to know for sure.

(07-27-2014 02:49 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  stop trying to tell other people what to do.

This from the guy who tells me to stop posting on the C-USA board.



You're the gift that keeps on giving.

(07-27-2014 01:41 PM)techdawg88 Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 01:38 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 01:34 PM)techdawg88 Wrote:  the stadium looks nice but for as much money as they spent on it you would think they could've gotten it a little bigger

Entering into this world of declining attendance for college football and increase in the number of outlets for televised games, I think its wiser for schools to concentrate more on quality of the experience over number of seats. I don't think Tulane has a proven need for a large stadium at this point.

good point, but even if the need arises it looks like it will be difficult to add new seats unless they plan on getting rid of some of those buildings

The SuperDome isn't going anywhere...if LSU or Ole Miss want to play them, the game could always be moved to the SuperDome.

(07-27-2014 04:12 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(07-27-2014 02:49 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  stop trying to tell other people what to do.

This from the guy who tells me to stop posting on the C-USA board.



You're the gift that keeps on giving.

I never told you to stop posting. What I told you was to stop trying to make everything into a topic on UL-L...

and I believe it was the main Mod that told you this also.

But hey way to take things out of context