There is no hurry from a CUSA standpoint. They will figure out how to play with 13 next fall and most likely come out with some probationary period for UAB football.

(01-27-2015 09:12 PM)GeauxUL Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 08:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 10:01 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 02:00 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 12:15 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  NIU is not going to CUSA. It would be really foolish of them, they own the MAC and are constantly challenging for an access berth right now. They don't have the same guarantee in CUSA.

I don't see Ohio either...

No MAC school is going from a Bus league to a Plane league, then pay an exit fee from the MAC ($2.5 Million), then lose their last year revenue and lastly pay a $2 million entry fee to CUSA. Leaving a conference with long time rivals for a conference that you have no history with. For basically the same amount of revenue. Just not going to happen.

I think Ohio would go. They've got a rivalry with Marshall and they have to contend with being one of six MAC schools in Ohio. Shaking things up could have some value for them.

The pros for Ohio in CUSA

1. Marshall rivalry is a conference rivalry
2. No midweek football games. Ohio has good gate to protect.
3. Help for scheduling, particularly in basketball. Schools like Dayton and Xavier won't play us on the road because we are in the MAC.
4. CUSA East is a stronger division than the MAC East.

If you aren't a big booster school like Memphis, UConn or Cincinnati you may be over your head in the AAC. CUSA offers a way for a school that isn't rolling in athletic cash to stand out on the athletic scene and challenge the best of the G5 for that autobid.

I actually think Ohio would be a good look for cusa...

So yeah, go back to the MAC Membership timeline. There is zero chance that schools that have been together for 40 to 60 years decide to jump to CUSA

(01-28-2015 07:22 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 09:25 PM)CajunExpress Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 02:16 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 02:04 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 01:04 PM)Dracorex Wrote:  [quote='TheRevSWT' pid='11704190' dateline='1422380607']
Legit question to the UAB folks: Is there a realistic chance the program starts back up this year (or next)? I thought the travesty was basically a done deal at this point.

Coach Clark is still on campus. If they told him that football would be back in 2016 he could get some of his players back on campus. There are still like 40 guys on campus from last years football team. The younger starters did transfer though. We couldn't field a competitive team in 2015 at all, but we also couldn't do that before Clark got here either.

It is not inconceivable to have a team playing some games again in 2016 with heavy JUCO presence for upperclassmen. Provided the NCAA would allow us to back fill the 2015 recruiting class into 2016.

Sorry, I think my question was misleading. I don't mean "mechanically" can UAB restart the program, I was wondering if there were legit rumblings within the university to restart the program. Like from Admin, Donors, etc.

I haven't heard anything lately in the local media about it. Some of the surrounding communities were trying to force UAb via legal ways to continue football. Their claim was the lost revenue for their city due to the loss of football.

For those of you unfamiliar, Birmingham is not the largest city in the "Birmingham Metro Area", it is made up of over a dozen cities, Hoover I believe is currently the largest.
[/quot

Pretty sure UAB is no longer a viable NCAA football school, and would have to start from scratch. Perhaps they let them use the kids who are still having their school paid for, but do they have to go though the same issues as say Georgia Southern. They disbanded, paid off opponents for lost contracts, scattered student athletes, and notified the NCAA of their departure for FBS football, or any football.

Yeah, UAB is most likely done with football. I really feel sorry for their fans, but I'm not sure what CUSA president's hope to accomplish by delaying the inevitable expulsion of UAB from the conference. Putting off the decision until June does give any school interested in replacing UAB time to put together their best proposal. Lots and lots of politicking will be going on over the next five months. I think an announcement will be made in time for any new addition to give its one year notice to the SBC before July 1.

I think you are right, uab is probably done with football. from what I am reading on blogs there is not near the uproar and organized attempts at stalling the demise of football at uab that we went thru at uta and everything just fell on deaf ears. that was nearly 30 years ago and we had a long history of playing football before that so I would not get my hopes up for an early return.

(01-28-2015 08:15 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(01-28-2015 07:22 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 09:25 PM)CajunExpress Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 02:16 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 02:04 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  Coach Clark is still on campus. If they told him that football would be back in 2016 he could get some of his players back on campus. There are still like 40 guys on campus from last years football team. The younger starters did transfer though. We couldn't field a competitive team in 2015 at all, but we also couldn't do that before Clark got here either.

It is not inconceivable to have a team playing some games again in 2016 with heavy JUCO presence for upperclassmen. Provided the NCAA would allow us to back fill the 2015 recruiting class into 2016.

Sorry, I think my question was misleading. I don't mean "mechanically" can UAB restart the program, I was wondering if there were legit rumblings within the university to restart the program. Like from Admin, Donors, etc.

I haven't heard anything lately in the local media about it. Some of the surrounding communities were trying to force UAb via legal ways to continue football. Their claim was the lost revenue for their city due to the loss of football.

For those of you unfamiliar, Birmingham is not the largest city in the "Birmingham Metro Area", it is made up of over a dozen cities, Hoover I believe is currently the largest.
[/quot

Pretty sure UAB is no longer a viable NCAA football school, and would have to start from scratch. Perhaps they let them use the kids who are still having their school paid for, but do they have to go though the same issues as say Georgia Southern. They disbanded, paid off opponents for lost contracts, scattered student athletes, and notified the NCAA of their departure for FBS football, or any football.

Yeah, UAB is most likely done with football. I really feel sorry for their fans, but I'm not sure what CUSA president's hope to accomplish by delaying the inevitable expulsion of UAB from the conference. Putting off the decision until June does give any school interested in replacing UAB time to put together their best proposal. Lots and lots of politicking will be going on over the next five months. I think an announcement will be made in time for any new addition to give its one year notice to the SBC before July 1.

I think you are right, uab is probably done with football. from what I am reading on blogs there is not near the uproar and organized attempts at stalling the demise of football at uab that we went thru at uta and everything just fell on deaf ears. that was nearly 30 years ago and we had a long history of playing football before that so I would not get my hopes up for an early return.

You should probably peruse the UAB board...ijs

(01-28-2015 07:22 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 09:25 PM)CajunExpress Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 02:16 PM)Usajags Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 02:04 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 01:04 PM)Dracorex Wrote:  [quote='TheRevSWT' pid='11704190' dateline='1422380607']
Legit question to the UAB folks: Is there a realistic chance the program starts back up this year (or next)? I thought the travesty was basically a done deal at this point.

Coach Clark is still on campus. If they told him that football would be back in 2016 he could get some of his players back on campus. There are still like 40 guys on campus from last years football team. The younger starters did transfer though. We couldn't field a competitive team in 2015 at all, but we also couldn't do that before Clark got here either.

It is not inconceivable to have a team playing some games again in 2016 with heavy JUCO presence for upperclassmen. Provided the NCAA would allow us to back fill the 2015 recruiting class into 2016.

Sorry, I think my question was misleading. I don't mean "mechanically" can UAB restart the program, I was wondering if there were legit rumblings within the university to restart the program. Like from Admin, Donors, etc.

I haven't heard anything lately in the local media about it. Some of the surrounding communities were trying to force UAb via legal ways to continue football. Their claim was the lost revenue for their city due to the loss of football.

For those of you unfamiliar, Birmingham is not the largest city in the "Birmingham Metro Area", it is made up of over a dozen cities, Hoover I believe is currently the largest.
[/quot

Pretty sure UAB is no longer a viable NCAA football school, and would have to start from scratch. Perhaps they let them use the kids who are still having their school paid for, but do they have to go though the same issues as say Georgia Southern. They disbanded, paid off opponents for lost contracts, scattered student athletes, and notified the NCAA of their departure for FBS football, or any football.

Yeah, UAB is most likely done with football. I really feel sorry for their fans, but I'm not sure what CUSA president's hope to accomplish by delaying the inevitable expulsion of UAB from the conference. Putting off the decision until June does give any school interested in replacing UAB time to put together their best proposal. Lots and lots of politicking will be going on over the next five months. I think an announcement will be made in time for any new addition to give its one year notice to the SBC before July 1.

Putting the decision off does give CUSA time to "vet" / determine whom they might want as a replacement . . . If any . .. Beyond that, not sure why they're waiting ...

I've said all along that if I'm CUSA and I plan to boot UAB, I tell them that and pray they find a home so they can announce the shift before I kick them to the curb. Booting them is just an added gut punch so if they can resolve the problem for me, all the better for all involved.

(01-28-2015 09:41 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  I've said all along that if I'm CUSA and I plan to boot UAB, I tell them that and pray they find a home so they can announce the shift before I kick them to the curb. Booting them is just an added gut punch so if they can resolve the problem for me, all the better for all involved.

This. Sometimes its not as simple as rules and regulations and dollars and cents which is why we have Idaho in our conference.

(01-27-2015 08:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 10:01 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 02:00 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 12:15 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-26-2015 11:43 PM)southernwolf Wrote:  My opinion only, I don't believe Texas State has to worry about CUSA. I think that if they replace UAB, it will be either NIU or Ohio U. from the MAC. The SBC will be spared, and everyone can breath easy.

NIU is not going to CUSA. It would be really foolish of them, they own the MAC and are constantly challenging for an access berth right now. They don't have the same guarantee in CUSA.

I don't see Ohio either...

No MAC school is going from a Bus league to a Plane league, then pay an exit fee from the MAC ($2.5 Million), then lose their last year revenue and lastly pay a $2 million entry fee to CUSA. Leaving a conference with long time rivals for a conference that you have no history with. For basically the same amount of revenue. Just not going to happen.

I think Ohio would go. They've got a rivalry with Marshall and they have to contend with being one of six MAC schools in Ohio. Shaking things up could have some value for them.

The pros for Ohio in CUSA

1. Marshall rivalry is a conference rivalry
2. No midweek football games. Ohio has good gate to protect.
3. Help for scheduling, particularly in basketball. Schools like Dayton and Xavier won't play us on the road because we are in the MAC.
4. CUSA East is a stronger division than the MAC East.

If you aren't a big booster school like Memphis, UConn or Cincinnati you may be over your head in the AAC. CUSA offers a way for a school that isn't rolling in athletic cash to stand out on the athletic scene and challenge the best of the G5 for that autobid.

The cons for Ohio in CUSA:

1. The MAC exit fee of $2.5 million with two years notice.
2. The CUSA entry fee of $2 million.
3. The increased travel in CUSA.
4. The new MAC TV deal is about $650,000 per school. CUSA's current
deal is $1 million per school and that may go down in the future.

There would have to be a significant increase in revenue to justify leaving a conference that Ohio has been a member of since 1946. Ohio would actually lose money on a move to CUSA.

CUSA has never put a school in a BCS bowl, so I don't see how CUSA is in any better position to challenge for a G5 bid based on their history in football. Both CUSA and the MAC are one bid conferences in basketball. Moving to CUSA to be in the same conference with Marshall is not a reason to leave the MAC.

(01-28-2015 11:48 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 08:42 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 10:01 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 02:00 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 12:15 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  NIU is not going to CUSA. It would be really foolish of them, they own the MAC and are constantly challenging for an access berth right now. They don't have the same guarantee in CUSA.

I don't see Ohio either...

No MAC school is going from a Bus league to a Plane league, then pay an exit fee from the MAC ($2.5 Million), then lose their last year revenue and lastly pay a $2 million entry fee to CUSA. Leaving a conference with long time rivals for a conference that you have no history with. For basically the same amount of revenue. Just not going to happen.

I think Ohio would go. They've got a rivalry with Marshall and they have to contend with being one of six MAC schools in Ohio. Shaking things up could have some value for them.

The pros for Ohio in CUSA

1. Marshall rivalry is a conference rivalry
2. No midweek football games. Ohio has good gate to protect.
3. Help for scheduling, particularly in basketball. Schools like Dayton and Xavier won't play us on the road because we are in the MAC.
4. CUSA East is a stronger division than the MAC East.

If you aren't a big booster school like Memphis, UConn or Cincinnati you may be over your head in the AAC. CUSA offers a way for a school that isn't rolling in athletic cash to stand out on the athletic scene and challenge the best of the G5 for that autobid.

The cons for Ohio in CUSA:

1. The MAC exit fee of $2.5 million with two years notice.
2. The CUSA entry fee of $2 million.
3. The increased travel in CUSA.
4. The new MAC TV deal is about $650,000 per school. CUSA's current
deal is $1 million per school and that may go down in the future.

There would have to be a significant increase in revenue to justify leaving a conference that Ohio has been a member of since 1946. Ohio would actually lose money on a move to CUSA.

CUSA has never put a school in a BCS bowl, so I don't see how CUSA is in any better position to challenge for a G5 bid based on their history in football. Both CUSA and the MAC are one bid conferences in basketball. Moving to CUSA to be in the same conference with Marshall is not a reason to leave the MAC.

The MAC exit fee is not $2.5 million dollars. That amount only applied to Temple if they left on less than a year notice. There is no exit fee for leaving the MAC if you are a full member. The MAC entrance fee is only $500,000.

You are right that CUSA would be a large entrance fee, an entrance fee that Ohio couldn't justify paying with out a real athletic/academic upgrade. MAC basketball these days is also better regarded than CUSA.

With Ohio on the verge of 40,000 students and a 1 Billion dollar endowment they are out growing the MAC. The AAC is full of large enrollment schools which from an academic standpoint make it more of a target conference.

Ohio has the most out of state students from Pennsylvania so playing in a conference with Temple would make some sense. A basketball upgrade too with the AAC. Might as well wait until some more realignment happens for the AAC.

You guys keep talking about the CUSA entrance fee. You realize that the members of CUSA could easily wave that fee for a school they really want into the conference.

(01-28-2015 08:17 AM)panama Wrote:  

(01-28-2015 08:15 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(01-28-2015 07:22 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 09:25 PM)CajunExpress Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 02:16 PM)Usajags Wrote:  Sorry, I think my question was misleading. I don't mean "mechanically" can UAB restart the program, I was wondering if there were legit rumblings within the university to restart the program. Like from Admin, Donors, etc.

I haven't heard anything lately in the local media about it. Some of the surrounding communities were trying to force UAb via legal ways to continue football. Their claim was the lost revenue for their city due to the loss of football.

For those of you unfamiliar, Birmingham is not the largest city in the "Birmingham Metro Area", it is made up of over a dozen cities, Hoover I believe is currently the largest.
[/quot

Pretty sure UAB is no longer a viable NCAA football school, and would have to start from scratch. Perhaps they let them use the kids who are still having their school paid for, but do they have to go though the same issues as say Georgia Southern. They disbanded, paid off opponents for lost contracts, scattered student athletes, and notified the NCAA of their departure for FBS football, or any football.

Yeah, UAB is most likely done with football. I really feel sorry for their fans, but I'm not sure what CUSA president's hope to accomplish by delaying the inevitable expulsion of UAB from the conference. Putting off the decision until June does give any school interested in replacing UAB time to put together their best proposal. Lots and lots of politicking will be going on over the next five months. I think an announcement will be made in time for any new addition to give its one year notice to the SBC before July 1.

I think you are right, uab is probably done with football. from what I am reading on blogs there is not near the uproar and organized attempts at stalling the demise of football at uab that we went thru at uta and everything just fell on deaf ears. that was nearly 30 years ago and we had a long history of playing football before that so I would not get my hopes up for an early return.

You should probably peruse the UAB board...ijs

some angry posters is one thing but when they were cutting football at uta they first used low attendance as the reason. boosters got commitments for enough tickets to sell out the next year. then they said that football was losing too much money so we had an audit done and of course it was determined that football actually lost very little money but women's sports was the culprit. several donors stepped up with promises of increased funds. there was also a rally at the stadium. none of that swayed the administration. I have not read on even the cusa blog of any of these kinds of efforts taking place at uab. just trying to point out that once the administration goes public with their decision, they are not going to change their mind.

History lesson: UAH, University of Alabama-Huntsville is under the same Bot as UAb has a hockey program that the BoT and school president decided to drop. They announced it before the season that it would be their last. However there was enough uproar and support for the program, and a president change, and the program was saved. This is a national championship winning program. So the BoT of UAt has a history of shutting programs down.

On a personal note, Alabama has started a club hockey program a few years ago, I saw this as a we are going varsity in hockey and don't want UAH to have a better program to overshadow the mother campus.

The UA BoT learned from the first attempt on UAH hockey when dealing with UAb football, announce after the season and shut it down immediately, not before the season when supporters have an actual opportunity to save the program.

(01-27-2015 09:06 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 10:00 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 12:15 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-26-2015 11:43 PM)southernwolf Wrote:  

(01-26-2015 03:14 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  I am just not that excited about a Texas State move to CUSA. I see a move to CUSA as a lateral move that is going to cost a lot of money. There is the $2 million entry fee and the loss of revenue in the last year with the SBC, which would be at least $1.5 million. CUSA will have a new TV deal in 2016-2017 and no one knows what the value of that deal might be. The SBC has a terrible TV deal that has no where to go but up. I would also rather be with ESPN than Fox. If you are good, ESPN will find you and promote you.

I don't want Texas State to be UNT. UNT football went 22-73 in their last eight seasons with the SBC and then got an invite to CUSA based on their location and potential. I want Texas State to earn an invite to a better conference or I want to Texas State help make the SBC a better conference.

I can see the appeal of being in a conference with other Texas schools, but if we were going to make a move to another conference I see the AAC and MWC as better places to be. I think the AAC and MWC offer a better national stage and I think CUSA today is not much different than the SBC.

My opinion only, I don't believe Texas State has to worry about CUSA. I think that if they replace UAB, it will be either NIU or Ohio U. from the MAC. The SBC will be spared, and everyone can breath easy.

NIU is not going to CUSA. It would be really foolish of them, they own the MAC and are constantly challenging for an access berth right now. They don't have the same guarantee in CUSA.

I don't see Ohio either...

Unless the new TV deal is a dandy or they waive the entry fee, it would take NIU like 20 years to recover the cost of joining CUSA before accounting for travel costs.

One point on NIU beyond the travel cost that FranktheTank brought up on the realignment was in the Chicago market, several MAC schools have recognizable names (Miami, Ball St, Western Michigan, Eastern Michigan). A lot of grads from those schools end up in Chicago. Miami has about 10% of its student population from the Chicagoland area due to only being 4-5 hours away and a public ivy.

Ohio is well known in Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Charleston area more so than the Chicago or Indianapolis region. Below is a list of Ohio students by state.

1. Ohio 31,655
2. Pennsylvania 1,282
3. Kentucky 578
4. Michigan 503
5. West Virginia 359
6. Illinois 266
7. New York 225
8. California 191
9. Maryland 185
10.Virginia 182

Illinois is behind West Virginia and Kentucky as a source of students. It does make some sense then for Ohio to want to be in a division with the #3 Kentucky (Western Kentucky), #5 West Virginia (Marshall), #10 Virginia (Old Dominion).

I doubt if NIU has any CUSA state's in its Top 10 list, and if so its probably Florida or Texas with like 20 students.

I don't think 225 students from the whole of New York State makes you "well known in Buffalo". I lived there 25 years and met exactly *1* OU alumni (who was a contractor working out of Erie PA).

90% of people in Buffalo think "Buckeyes" if you said Ohio U. The 5% who know better are UB fans

(01-29-2015 02:19 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 09:06 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 10:00 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 12:15 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-26-2015 11:43 PM)southernwolf Wrote:  My opinion only, I don't believe Texas State has to worry about CUSA. I think that if they replace UAB, it will be either NIU or Ohio U. from the MAC. The SBC will be spared, and everyone can breath easy.

NIU is not going to CUSA. It would be really foolish of them, they own the MAC and are constantly challenging for an access berth right now. They don't have the same guarantee in CUSA.

I don't see Ohio either...

Unless the new TV deal is a dandy or they waive the entry fee, it would take NIU like 20 years to recover the cost of joining CUSA before accounting for travel costs.

One point on NIU beyond the travel cost that FranktheTank brought up on the realignment was in the Chicago market, several MAC schools have recognizable names (Miami, Ball St, Western Michigan, Eastern Michigan). A lot of grads from those schools end up in Chicago. Miami has about 10% of its student population from the Chicagoland area due to only being 4-5 hours away and a public ivy.

Ohio is well known in Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Charleston area more so than the Chicago or Indianapolis region. Below is a list of Ohio students by state.

1. Ohio 31,655
2. Pennsylvania 1,282
3. Kentucky 578
4. Michigan 503
5. West Virginia 359
6. Illinois 266
7. New York 225
8. California 191
9. Maryland 185
10.Virginia 182

Illinois is behind West Virginia and Kentucky as a source of students. It does make some sense then for Ohio to want to be in a division with the #3 Kentucky (Western Kentucky), #5 West Virginia (Marshall), #10 Virginia (Old Dominion).

I doubt if NIU has any CUSA state's in its Top 10 list, and if so its probably Florida or Texas with like 20 students.

I don't think 225 students from the whole of New York State makes you "well known in Buffalo". I lived there 25 years and met exactly *1* OU alumni (who was a contractor working out of Erie PA).

90% of people in Buffalo think "Buckeyes" if you said Ohio U. The 5% who know better are UB fans

I remember when Buffalo first joined the MAC and a UB grad I knew said that he was elated about the move up to big time football and that they are playing schools like Miami and OU now.

When presidents at the G5 level are thinking about what conference they belong in they think first about geography and institutional fit. This crap about my TV deal being bigger than yours because it pays 1.1 million vs. 850,000 I don't think is a prime consideration.

Ohio has a new president who wants athletics to be the very best it can be. That is a stark difference from decades past. Attendance was toward the bottom of the MAC in the 80's and the school had 14,000 students main campus. Now the main campus has 23,000 students by itself and leading MAC in FB/BB attendance.

(01-26-2015 09:23 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  The conference is only 13 years old in football, we will get there soon enough.

That argument is kinda invalid. CUSA is only 20 year old this year and has many teams in all of CUSA1.0 CUSA2.0 and CUSA3.0 ranked. Louisville was ranked in the 2nd year of CUSA and USM finished in the final rankings ranked 14th in 1999, the 4th year of CUSA.

In 13 years of the Sun Belt only 3 weeks has a Sun Belt team even got a spot of a vote in the polls, that's including both the AP and Coaches.

(01-29-2015 10:06 PM)HerdZoned Wrote:  

(01-26-2015 09:23 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  The conference is only 13 years old in football, we will get there soon enough.

That argument is kinda invalid. CUSA is only 20 year old this year and has many teams in all of CUSA1.0 CUSA2.0 and CUSA3.0 ranked. Louisville was ranked in the 2nd year of CUSA and USM finished in the final rankings ranked 14th in 1999, the 4th year of CUSA.

In 13 years of the Sun Belt only 3 weeks has a Sun Belt team even got a spot of a vote in the polls, that's including both the AP and Coaches.

You are the only one arguing, conference is only 13 years old, we will get there soon enough.

(01-29-2015 10:06 PM)HerdZoned Wrote:  

(01-26-2015 09:23 PM)Louisiana99 Wrote:  The conference is only 13 years old in football, we will get there soon enough.

That argument is kinda invalid. CUSA is only 20 year old this year and has many teams in all of CUSA1.0 CUSA2.0 and CUSA3.0 ranked. Louisville was ranked in the 2nd year of CUSA and USM finished in the final rankings ranked 14th in 1999, the 4th year of CUSA.

In 13 years of the Sun Belt only 3 weeks has a Sun Belt team even got a spot of a vote in the polls, that's including both the AP and Coaches.

That's a pretty disingenuous argument without taking into account the starting line for both conferences. CUSA had 20 years but has had the benefit of being built by long-established football programs with long histories in major conferences TCU, SMU, Rice, Houston, or programs with national reputations in basketball established before they became members. The SBC had NO such legacy to build with.

The distance the SBC has travelled in 13 years is a long way. It arguably reached parity with the MAC in the last couple of years prior to losing members. The gap between SBC and CUSA seemed completely unbridgeable in the early 2000's. It doesn't seem unbridgeable at all at this point.

We'll keep trying. You keep looking over your shoulder.

One problem the SBC has had is the fact that many very good SBC teams have had to start the season off with a brutal money game played in a very hostile environment and very early in the season. Though you can sometimes get lucky and play one of these games in a year when the opponent isn't having a good year, more often you're facing a Top 25 (if not a TOP 10) team. Any hope of being ranked that year is gone after you lose big to a P5 powerhouse. Almost all of us have been there.

Things in mirror are closer than they appear and someone is concerned.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...o-keep-uab



C-USA: League will be patient on whether to keep UAB