(01-23-2015 07:27 PM)airtroop Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 08:45 PM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 08:33 PM)airtroop Wrote:  I haven't any idea about the 2017 split being written in stone but I can confirm it'd take a MAJOR emergency (i.e., big SBC raid) for NMSU to ever become an all-sports SBC member again... that from a very trustworthy source (remember I'm the one who confirmed the F-U's were gone weeks before it was official -- same source).

Sorry to hear that. . . . Short sighted in my opinion. .. .Idaho, yeah I get that . . They're so far out that it makes no sense to keep them. NMSU brings immediate help in BB and baseball. Karl says he wants a CG, now you're kicking NMSU to the curb, not sure how that helps. Do your "sources" have any insight as to a replacement?

I don't know about any other schools but USA's objection was based upon travel and the Olympic sports AFIAK, nothing personal. Assuming that was the reasoning behind other member schools were opposed to NMSU but I'm not sure.

Personally, I'd love to have NMSU back if for no other reason than their basketball - nice little rivalry was beginning to develop between us last time they were in the SBC. Then again, I also want what's best for our school and if they would just add red ink to our athletics they've got my FULL support.

As for your question I have no idea. I haven't had the opportunity to hang out with any of them in a couple of months. When we do hang out I don't bombard them with questions, we hoist beers, watch sports and shoot the breeze. I know what I can and cannot repeat and to whom I can repeat it to if limited. They're friends and that's all.

Cool, was only asking about your sources, as you'd cited them in a previous post . . .
Certainly don't/didn't want to put you on the spot . . . Understand your relationship, appreciate your response. . . ..

(01-23-2015 11:02 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 10:43 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 09:48 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 09:44 AM)97App Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 08:30 AM)runamuck Wrote:  I dont see where nmsu has any option to move anywhere. if c-usa boots uab, u-laf would probably take their place. we would need to hang on to nmsu and try to snag uab. umass for football or mostate would suddenly be on the table. as a western school, having nmsu all in would be good for uta and txst. we have a history with them. they recruit here and if there were two divisions, the regional alignment would work well. plus they are a nationally known school and would add a little credibility to the sbc that most of the other expansion candidates dont.

I wonder if CUSA would replace UAB at all. I doubt the Cajuns will increase CUSA's overall revenues and $12million split over 13 schools is better than $12million split over 14 schools. Not to mention the slight chance of the Big 12 expanding and CUSA eventually losing another school as the effects trickle down.

CUSA has always been proactive. I do not look for that to change now. Word is that USM wants to move to the East Division. I expect that if one school is added, it will be in the west. I am also hearing that they will not add one school, as the membership cannot agree one a single one to add. I am hearing 3 schools [either 2 West-1 East or all in the West] or none.

I just don't see 16 being a good number for a G5 conference. What 3 teams could they add that want to be in CUSA and could also move the $$ needle enough for CUSA to want them?

It wouldn't be about moving the $$ needle but compacting the divisions for travel. Or, outside thinking here, to give the American Sport Network more inventory to choose to show.
If S. Miss really wanted to be in the East division, then 3 teams in the West would need to be added. NMSU, Tex. St and ULL. You have two nice regional divisions.

If just going to 14 then a west team would be still be added to regionalize the two divisions. In which case look for Ark. St, ULL, Tex St or NMSU to be 1 of teams added.

edit: Despite having 16 teams, it would raise their profile in basketball to a 2 or 3 bid league. With usual basketball powerhouses like NMSU, Rice, UTEP, WKU, ODU and Charlotte adding more RPI strength at the top.

Right now, CUSA is a one bid basketball conference dividing up 12 tournament financial units earned over a six year period among 14 schools. At about $250,000 per unit, that comes out to about $214,000 per school. The SBC has earned nine tounament units over six years which divided by 11 comes out to about $204,000 per school. Not much difference between CUSA and the SBC. It makes no sense to go to 16.

In football, the CFP will pay each G5 conference $1 million per school for up to 12 schools. So if you have 12 schools the conference gets $12 million. If you have 16 schools, the conference gets $12 million. It makes no sense to go to 16.

The only thing CUSA has over the SBC is TV revenue and that is only through 2015-2016. Supposedly CUSA gets a total of $14 million per season, with $7 million coming from Fox and $7 million from CBS. But CBS only televised seven CUSA home games this season, which means they are either not paying $7 million anymore or have given up on CUSA football. Fox has no reason to pay more than $7 million per year for CUSA football. ESPN does not need CUSA, so I would doubt that they would bid on this. So it makes no sense to go to 16 if the TV revenue is going down.

CUSA would be better off at 12, should probably stay at 13 when UAB is kicked out and should not go to 14 unless a school can make an impact on conference revenue.

(01-23-2015 01:32 PM)97App Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 12:29 PM)runamuck Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 11:02 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 10:43 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 09:48 AM)Vobserver Wrote:  CUSA has always been proactive. I do not look for that to change now. Word is that USM wants to move to the East Division. I expect that if one school is added, it will be in the west. I am also hearing that they will not add one school, as the membership cannot agree one a single one to add. I am hearing 3 schools [either 2 West-1 East or all in the West] or none.

I just don't see 16 being a good number for a G5 conference. What 3 teams could they add that want to be in CUSA and could also move the $$ needle enough for CUSA to want them?

It wouldn't be about moving the $$ needle but compacting the divisions for travel. Or, outside thinking here, to give the American Sport Network more inventory to choose to show.
If S. Miss really wanted to be in the East division, then 3 teams in the West would need to be added. NMSU, Tex. St and ULL. You have two nice regional divisions.

If just going to 14 then a west team would be still be added to regionalize the two divisions. In which case look for Ark. St, ULL, Tex St or NMSU to be 1 of teams added.

edit: Despite having 16 teams, it would raise their profile in basketball to a 2 or 3 bid league. With usual basketball powerhouses like NMSU, Rice, UTEP, WKU, ODU and Charlotte adding more RPI strength at the top.

I dont know who changed my post with the bold lettering and underscoring, but I only meant to add my opinion that u-laf would be attractive to c-usa and the cajuns would probably bolt. someone said that c-usa might just stay with 13 but 2 seven team divisions would make sense.

It was me, I was just directing attention to the portion of your comment that I was commenting on. Simply offering a different point of view. I certainly have no insider info and don't claim to know what will happen.

no problem. I like the sbc and I hope no schools leave. I think nmsu all in would be good for the conference and I think Idaho moving on to a more western conference would be good for us. we could invite uab and have east/west basketball divisions and bump up our RPI a little at the same time. with 10 in football, everybody plays each other while we wait for a couple of suitable additions to make 12. maybe mostate in the west and jmu or similar in the east.

I would be surprised if CUSA sticks at 13.

The scheduling and travel hassles alone mean they will likely expand unless they vapor lock on who to add.

The key to a 16 or even 18 team league is you need two groups content to not play the other division very much. The SEC addressed that with permanent rivals. I don't see any situation where that could be in demand in CUSA unless they went with a solution that put WKU and MTSU in different divisions.

CUSA has considered 16 before and it failed to gain traction because a group of eastern schools were pushing JMU which would have denied UAB the chance to be in the more travel friendly east. The hope was two western teams to get UAB into a position to save money.

(01-24-2015 08:31 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I would be surprised if CUSA sticks at 13.

The scheduling and travel hassles alone mean they will likely expand unless they vapor lock on who to add.

The key to a 16 or even 18 team league is you need two groups content to not play the other division very much. The SEC addressed that with permanent rivals. I don't see any situation where that could be in demand in CUSA unless they went with a solution that put WKU and MTSU in different divisions.

CUSA has considered 16 before and it failed to gain traction because a group of eastern schools were pushing JMU which would have denied UAB the chance to be in the more travel friendly east. The hope was two western teams to get UAB into a position to save money.

Ya - checking the map, it's clear that except for the F_Us, C-USA lacks convenient travel partners:


Any of:
NMSU (/UTEP)
TxSt (/UTSA)
ULL, or ULM (/LaTech) or
USA (/USM)
App (/UNCC)

would improve C-USA overall travel - but only for the REST of the conference.

CUSA has a lot of numbers, but it reminds me of the wide spread WAC configurations - it just doesn't look stable.

(01-25-2015 08:55 AM)DoubleAggie Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 08:31 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I would be surprised if CUSA sticks at 13.

The scheduling and travel hassles alone mean they will likely expand unless they vapor lock on who to add.

The key to a 16 or even 18 team league is you need two groups content to not play the other division very much. The SEC addressed that with permanent rivals. I don't see any situation where that could be in demand in CUSA unless they went with a solution that put WKU and MTSU in different divisions.

CUSA has considered 16 before and it failed to gain traction because a group of eastern schools were pushing JMU which would have denied UAB the chance to be in the more travel friendly east. The hope was two western teams to get UAB into a position to save money.

Ya - checking the map, it's clear that except for the F_Us, C-USA lacks convenient travel partners:


Any of:
NMSU (/UTEP)
TxSt (/UTSA)
ULL, or ULM (/LaTech) or
USA (/USM)
App (/UNCC)

would improve C-USA overall travel - but only for the REST of the conference.

CUSA has a lot of numbers, but it reminds me of the wide spread WAC configurations - it just doesn't look stable.

Since you're discussing C-USA, I'll go ahead and chime in. I really hope there is an expansion to 16 or even 18 and I know that begins to look unstable and like a recipe for a split down the road. I really don't see that as a bad thing. A split I mean. It's much better to me if an 18 school conference splits into 2 conferences than to be in the old WAC's situation of ending up with too few teams so that when raids or splits occur, you have 2 or 3 schools left out with no reasonable place to go.

(01-25-2015 08:55 AM)DoubleAggie Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 08:31 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I would be surprised if CUSA sticks at 13.

The scheduling and travel hassles alone mean they will likely expand unless they vapor lock on who to add.

The key to a 16 or even 18 team league is you need two groups content to not play the other division very much. The SEC addressed that with permanent rivals. I don't see any situation where that could be in demand in CUSA unless they went with a solution that put WKU and MTSU in different divisions.

CUSA has considered 16 before and it failed to gain traction because a group of eastern schools were pushing JMU which would have denied UAB the chance to be in the more travel friendly east. The hope was two western teams to get UAB into a position to save money.

Ya - checking the map, it's clear that except for the F_Us, C-USA lacks convenient travel partners:


Any of:
NMSU (/UTEP)
TxSt (/UTSA)
ULL, or ULM (/LaTech) or
USA (/USM)
App (/UNCC)

would improve C-USA overall travel - but only for the REST of the conference.

CUSA has a lot of numbers, but it reminds me of the wide spread WAC configurations - it just doesn't look stable.

WKU and MTSU work well as travel partners.

(01-25-2015 09:54 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 08:55 AM)DoubleAggie Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 08:31 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I would be surprised if CUSA sticks at 13.

The scheduling and travel hassles alone mean they will likely expand unless they vapor lock on who to add.

The key to a 16 or even 18 team league is you need two groups content to not play the other division very much. The SEC addressed that with permanent rivals. I don't see any situation where that could be in demand in CUSA unless they went with a solution that put WKU and MTSU in different divisions.

CUSA has considered 16 before and it failed to gain traction because a group of eastern schools were pushing JMU which would have denied UAB the chance to be in the more travel friendly east. The hope was two western teams to get UAB into a position to save money.

Ya - checking the map, it's clear that except for the F_Us, C-USA lacks convenient travel partners:


Any of:
NMSU (/UTEP)
TxSt (/UTSA)
ULL, or ULM (/LaTech) or
USA (/USM)
App (/UNCC)

would improve C-USA overall travel - but only for the REST of the conference.

CUSA has a lot of numbers, but it reminds me of the wide spread WAC configurations - it just doesn't look stable.

Since you're discussing C-USA, I'll go ahead and chime in. I really hope there is an expansion to 16 or even 18 and I know that begins to look unstable and like a recipe for a split down the road. I really don't see that as a bad thing. A split I mean. It's much better to me if an 18 school conference splits into 2 conferences than to be in the old WAC's situation of ending up with too few teams so that when raids or splits occur, you have 2 or 3 schools left out with no reasonable place to go.

Well before this round of realignment, ECU's AD publicly campaigned for expansion to 16 arguing the reduction in travel costs and increased fan awareness in regional opponents with fewer teams rotating on the schedule would pay the difference even if revenue didn't grow.

A friend did some of the consulting work and said he wanted to have enough teams in the east to split the league if that later looked to be the better financial deal.

When that didn't gain traction he even organized a meeting with the intent of splitting the league and forming a new one because of frustration over varying commitment levels.

People read way too much into the WAC16. At the core, a conference is less about the money and more about aligning athletic departments with a shared vision who want to compete against each other. Colorado State didn't want to give up BYU, Air Force didn't want to give up Utah. Would the SEC have lasted if Bama had to give up Tennessee or Auburn give up Georgia? Keeping those games was a pre-condition to expansion, so the answer is SEC probably would not have survived at 12 eliminating those games.

One MWC defected the WAC looked like a doughnut. East and West remained together solely for survival numbers.

I think ODU is taking a similar position to ECU. When Bankowsky pushed for 16, presumably with two western schools to push UAB east, ODU began touting JMU. If you wanted to split CUSA in the long-term from ODU (or most eastern schools perspective) going to 16 with 8 east division members and a 9th western you think would align with you is the perfect strategy. You can open the doors with 9 and have flexibility to get to 10 or 12 at your own pace. If you start with 8 you pretty much have to add one off the bat.

(01-25-2015 08:55 AM)DoubleAggie Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 08:31 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I would be surprised if CUSA sticks at 13.

The scheduling and travel hassles alone mean they will likely expand unless they vapor lock on who to add.

The key to a 16 or even 18 team league is you need two groups content to not play the other division very much. The SEC addressed that with permanent rivals. I don't see any situation where that could be in demand in CUSA unless they went with a solution that put WKU and MTSU in different divisions.

CUSA has considered 16 before and it failed to gain traction because a group of eastern schools were pushing JMU which would have denied UAB the chance to be in the more travel friendly east. The hope was two western teams to get UAB into a position to save money.

Ya - checking the map, it's clear that except for the F_Us, C-USA lacks convenient travel partners:


Any of:
NMSU (/UTEP)
TxSt (/UTSA)
ULL, or ULM (/LaTech) or
USA (/USM)
App (/UNCC)

would improve C-USA overall travel - but only for the REST of the conference.

CUSA has a lot of numbers, but it reminds me of the wide spread WAC configurations - it just doesn't look stable.

That map screams for an addition (or additions) from Georgia and/or Arkansas.

So, is the leadership of the SBC in a position to be passive, at a time when the possibility of more shuffling is coming?

The SBC has leadership??? When did that happen???

(01-25-2015 12:34 PM)Usajags Wrote:  The SBC has leadership??? When did that happen???

Someone's gotta keep those golf courses around SBC HQ humming. . . .

(01-25-2015 11:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 08:55 AM)DoubleAggie Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 08:31 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I would be surprised if CUSA sticks at 13.

The scheduling and travel hassles alone mean they will likely expand unless they vapor lock on who to add.

The key to a 16 or even 18 team league is you need two groups content to not play the other division very much. The SEC addressed that with permanent rivals. I don't see any situation where that could be in demand in CUSA unless they went with a solution that put WKU and MTSU in different divisions.

CUSA has considered 16 before and it failed to gain traction because a group of eastern schools were pushing JMU which would have denied UAB the chance to be in the more travel friendly east. The hope was two western teams to get UAB into a position to save money.

Ya - checking the map, it's clear that except for the F_Us, C-USA lacks convenient travel partners:


Any of:
NMSU (/UTEP)
TxSt (/UTSA)
ULL, or ULM (/LaTech) or
USA (/USM)
App (/UNCC)

would improve C-USA overall travel - but only for the REST of the conference.

CUSA has a lot of numbers, but it reminds me of the wide spread WAC configurations - it just doesn't look stable.

WKU and MTSU work well as travel partners.

I don't know that anyone travel partnered their way to glory. If you are worried about travel costs....blow the whole thing up and form regional conferences.

My model for a conference is sort of like the SEC. 1 program per state except where there is a real concrete reason for having more.

CUSA sort of followed that model but muddied it up. IMO they should have chosen one of either FIU or FAU instead of both and taken Georgia State instead. They would have covered all of their core states except SC which is ok.

Now with losing UAB they are in sort of a bind because they have nothing in the two main football crazy states in the center of their footprint....but have divisional alignment problems so that they need to add to the West to keep everyone happy.

IMO the obvious thing to do is add USA, Georgia State, and Arkansas State with USA and Arkansas State in the west and Georgia State in the east. CUSA has a serious conference map at that point.

Of course, if I were USM I'd balk at USA big time. Your alternative there is to just give up in Alabama to appease USM and choose ULL....or the less offensive and less appealing Alabama choice...Troy.

Looks to me like you either have a 16-team league....a 14-team league with no Alabama or Georgia....or split the baby with a 14-team league that has one of Alabama or Georgia and a weird divisional alignment.

That said, they probably go way outside the box and add UMASS or something.

(01-25-2015 12:11 PM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 08:55 AM)DoubleAggie Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 08:31 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I would be surprised if CUSA sticks at 13.

The scheduling and travel hassles alone mean they will likely expand unless they vapor lock on who to add.

The key to a 16 or even 18 team league is you need two groups content to not play the other division very much. The SEC addressed that with permanent rivals. I don't see any situation where that could be in demand in CUSA unless they went with a solution that put WKU and MTSU in different divisions.

CUSA has considered 16 before and it failed to gain traction because a group of eastern schools were pushing JMU which would have denied UAB the chance to be in the more travel friendly east. The hope was two western teams to get UAB into a position to save money.

Ya - checking the map, it's clear that except for the F_Us, C-USA lacks convenient travel partners:


Any of:
NMSU (/UTEP)
TxSt (/UTSA)
ULL, or ULM (/LaTech) or
USA (/USM)
App (/UNCC)

would improve C-USA overall travel - but only for the REST of the conference.

CUSA has a lot of numbers, but it reminds me of the wide spread WAC configurations - it just doesn't look stable.

That map screams for an addition (or additions) from Georgia and/or Arkansas.

Simply looking at it geographically GaSt would make a great fit for CUSA. Not far to travel for eastern schools and in a large city and airline hub. We are assuming uab drops so maybe stAte could even things out or do they want to keep a presence in Alabama. The thing that TxSt likes about CUSA is the same thing that will keep them out. Maybe we could swap a couple schools.

(01-25-2015 12:34 PM)Usajags Wrote:  The SBC has leadership??? When did that happen???

Sure does. 11 University presidents/chancellors including the one at your school.

(01-25-2015 01:19 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 12:34 PM)Usajags Wrote:  The SBC has leadership??? When did that happen???

Sure does. 11 University presidents/chancellors including the one at your school.

Well played, Sir . . . Well played

(01-25-2015 01:02 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 11:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 08:55 AM)DoubleAggie Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 08:31 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I would be surprised if CUSA sticks at 13.

The scheduling and travel hassles alone mean they will likely expand unless they vapor lock on who to add.

The key to a 16 or even 18 team league is you need two groups content to not play the other division very much. The SEC addressed that with permanent rivals. I don't see any situation where that could be in demand in CUSA unless they went with a solution that put WKU and MTSU in different divisions.

CUSA has considered 16 before and it failed to gain traction because a group of eastern schools were pushing JMU which would have denied UAB the chance to be in the more travel friendly east. The hope was two western teams to get UAB into a position to save money.

Ya - checking the map, it's clear that except for the F_Us, C-USA lacks convenient travel partners:


Any of:
NMSU (/UTEP)
TxSt (/UTSA)
ULL, or ULM (/LaTech) or
USA (/USM)
App (/UNCC)

would improve C-USA overall travel - but only for the REST of the conference.

CUSA has a lot of numbers, but it reminds me of the wide spread WAC configurations - it just doesn't look stable.

WKU and MTSU work well as travel partners.

I don't know that anyone travel partnered their way to glory. If you are worried about travel costs....blow the whole thing up and form regional conferences.

My model for a conference is sort of like the SEC. 1 program per state except where there is a real concrete reason for having more.

CUSA sort of followed that model but muddied it up. IMO they should have chosen one of either FIU or FAU instead of both and taken Georgia State instead. They would have covered all of their core states except SC which is ok.

Now with losing UAB they are in sort of a bind because they have nothing in the two main football crazy states in the center of their footprint....but have divisional alignment problems so that they need to add to the West to keep everyone happy.

IMO the obvious thing to do is add USA, Georgia State, and Arkansas State with USA and Arkansas State in the west and Georgia State in the east. CUSA has a serious conference map at that point.

Of course, if I were USM I'd balk at USA big time. Your alternative there is to just give up in Alabama to appease USM and choose ULL....or the less offensive and less appealing Alabama choice...Troy.

Looks to me like you either have a 16-team league....a 14-team league with no Alabama or Georgia....or split the baby with a 14-team league that has one of Alabama or Georgia and a weird divisional alignment.

That said, they probably go way outside the box and add UMASS or something.

They stay in the Birmingham, Alabama market and invite Samford!!!

(01-25-2015 01:02 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 11:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 08:55 AM)DoubleAggie Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 08:31 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I would be surprised if CUSA sticks at 13.

The scheduling and travel hassles alone mean they will likely expand unless they vapor lock on who to add.

The key to a 16 or even 18 team league is you need two groups content to not play the other division very much. The SEC addressed that with permanent rivals. I don't see any situation where that could be in demand in CUSA unless they went with a solution that put WKU and MTSU in different divisions.

CUSA has considered 16 before and it failed to gain traction because a group of eastern schools were pushing JMU which would have denied UAB the chance to be in the more travel friendly east. The hope was two western teams to get UAB into a position to save money.

Ya - checking the map, it's clear that except for the F_Us, C-USA lacks convenient travel partners:


Any of:
NMSU (/UTEP)
TxSt (/UTSA)
ULL, or ULM (/LaTech) or
USA (/USM)
App (/UNCC)

would improve C-USA overall travel - but only for the REST of the conference.

CUSA has a lot of numbers, but it reminds me of the wide spread WAC configurations - it just doesn't look stable.

WKU and MTSU work well as travel partners.

I don't know that anyone travel partnered their way to glory. If you are worried about travel costs....blow the whole thing up and form regional conferences.

My model for a conference is sort of like the SEC. 1 program per state except where there is a real concrete reason for having more.

CUSA sort of followed that model but muddied it up. IMO they should have chosen one of either FIU or FAU instead of both and taken Georgia State instead. They would have covered all of their core states except SC which is ok.

Now with losing UAB they are in sort of a bind because they have nothing in the two main football crazy states in the center of their footprint....but have divisional alignment problems so that they need to add to the West to keep everyone happy.

IMO the obvious thing to do is add USA, Georgia State, and Arkansas State with USA and Arkansas State in the west and Georgia State in the east. CUSA has a serious conference map at that point.

Of course, if I were USM I'd balk at USA big time. Your alternative there is to just give up in Alabama to appease USM and choose ULL....or the less offensive and less appealing Alabama choice...Troy.

Looks to me like you either have a 16-team league....a 14-team league with no Alabama or Georgia....or split the baby with a 14-team league that has one of Alabama or Georgia and a weird divisional alignment.

That said, they probably go way outside the box and add UMASS or something.

blow the whole thing up and form regional conference

This may be the smartest thing ever posted on this board. Take the Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas SBC and CUSA schools along with WKU, and MTSU then you have a conference that makes sense.

(01-25-2015 03:30 PM)epiccajun Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 01:02 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 11:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 08:55 AM)DoubleAggie Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 08:31 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I would be surprised if CUSA sticks at 13.

The scheduling and travel hassles alone mean they will likely expand unless they vapor lock on who to add.

The key to a 16 or even 18 team league is you need two groups content to not play the other division very much. The SEC addressed that with permanent rivals. I don't see any situation where that could be in demand in CUSA unless they went with a solution that put WKU and MTSU in different divisions.

CUSA has considered 16 before and it failed to gain traction because a group of eastern schools were pushing JMU which would have denied UAB the chance to be in the more travel friendly east. The hope was two western teams to get UAB into a position to save money.

Ya - checking the map, it's clear that except for the F_Us, C-USA lacks convenient travel partners:


Any of:
NMSU (/UTEP)
TxSt (/UTSA)
ULL, or ULM (/LaTech) or
USA (/USM)
App (/UNCC)

would improve C-USA overall travel - but only for the REST of the conference.

CUSA has a lot of numbers, but it reminds me of the wide spread WAC configurations - it just doesn't look stable.

WKU and MTSU work well as travel partners.

I don't know that anyone travel partnered their way to glory. If you are worried about travel costs....blow the whole thing up and form regional conferences.

My model for a conference is sort of like the SEC. 1 program per state except where there is a real concrete reason for having more.

CUSA sort of followed that model but muddied it up. IMO they should have chosen one of either FIU or FAU instead of both and taken Georgia State instead. They would have covered all of their core states except SC which is ok.

Now with losing UAB they are in sort of a bind because they have nothing in the two main football crazy states in the center of their footprint....but have divisional alignment problems so that they need to add to the West to keep everyone happy.

IMO the obvious thing to do is add USA, Georgia State, and Arkansas State with USA and Arkansas State in the west and Georgia State in the east. CUSA has a serious conference map at that point.

Of course, if I were USM I'd balk at USA big time. Your alternative there is to just give up in Alabama to appease USM and choose ULL....or the less offensive and less appealing Alabama choice...Troy.

Looks to me like you either have a 16-team league....a 14-team league with no Alabama or Georgia....or split the baby with a 14-team league that has one of Alabama or Georgia and a weird divisional alignment.

That said, they probably go way outside the box and add UMASS or something.

blow the whole thing up and form regional conference

This may be the smartest thing ever posted on this board. Take the Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas SBC and CUSA schools along with WKU, and MTSU then you have a conference that makes sense.

Looking at that map it seems to me that UTEP is on the most distant island. Given that revelation NMSU should be the most logical target for CUSA.

(01-25-2015 03:26 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 01:02 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 11:25 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 08:55 AM)DoubleAggie Wrote:  

(01-24-2015 08:31 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I would be surprised if CUSA sticks at 13.

The scheduling and travel hassles alone mean they will likely expand unless they vapor lock on who to add.

The key to a 16 or even 18 team league is you need two groups content to not play the other division very much. The SEC addressed that with permanent rivals. I don't see any situation where that could be in demand in CUSA unless they went with a solution that put WKU and MTSU in different divisions.

CUSA has considered 16 before and it failed to gain traction because a group of eastern schools were pushing JMU which would have denied UAB the chance to be in the more travel friendly east. The hope was two western teams to get UAB into a position to save money.

Ya - checking the map, it's clear that except for the F_Us, C-USA lacks convenient travel partners:


Any of:
NMSU (/UTEP)
TxSt (/UTSA)
ULL, or ULM (/LaTech) or
USA (/USM)
App (/UNCC)

would improve C-USA overall travel - but only for the REST of the conference.

CUSA has a lot of numbers, but it reminds me of the wide spread WAC configurations - it just doesn't look stable.

WKU and MTSU work well as travel partners.

I don't know that anyone travel partnered their way to glory. If you are worried about travel costs....blow the whole thing up and form regional conferences.

My model for a conference is sort of like the SEC. 1 program per state except where there is a real concrete reason for having more.

CUSA sort of followed that model but muddied it up. IMO they should have chosen one of either FIU or FAU instead of both and taken Georgia State instead. They would have covered all of their core states except SC which is ok.

Now with losing UAB they are in sort of a bind because they have nothing in the two main football crazy states in the center of their footprint....but have divisional alignment problems so that they need to add to the West to keep everyone happy.

IMO the obvious thing to do is add USA, Georgia State, and Arkansas State with USA and Arkansas State in the west and Georgia State in the east. CUSA has a serious conference map at that point.

Of course, if I were USM I'd balk at USA big time. Your alternative there is to just give up in Alabama to appease USM and choose ULL....or the less offensive and less appealing Alabama choice...Troy.

Looks to me like you either have a 16-team league....a 14-team league with no Alabama or Georgia....or split the baby with a 14-team league that has one of Alabama or Georgia and a weird divisional alignment.

That said, they probably go way outside the box and add UMASS or something.

They stay in the Birmingham, Alabama market and invite Samford!!!

Jax st. Baby