If and a big if, If UAB wwas force to move out, would CUSA look at NMSU. A year ago they would of taken that life ring in a second. I don't see a ton a value, but I really don't know.

(03-18-2015 08:54 AM)DaBigBlue Wrote:  If and a big if, If UAB wwas force to move out, would CUSA look at NMSU. A year ago they would of taken that life ring in a second. I don't see a ton a value, but I really don't know.

I doubt it but you never know. NMSU makes it to the big dance every year because they are the best team in an awful conference. No reason to believe they would really help C-USA basketball much at all. They do nothing for football at all either. The only positive would be 2 for 1 trips from the rest of the conference in basketball and Olympic sports.

(03-18-2015 08:54 AM)DaBigBlue Wrote:  If and a big if, If UAB wwas force to move out, would CUSA look at NMSU. A year ago they would of taken that life ring in a second. I don't see a ton a value, but I really don't know.

I don't think it will be a good move since they don't add much value in term of football quality.

NMSU brings little value in anything.

(03-18-2015 08:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Speaking only for myself, I would rather have UTEP in CUSA than the MWC. I see some kinship for UTEP with the MWC - at least UTEP is in the Mountain time zone. But I think an analysis of travel would show that UTEP is better off in CUSA. Trips to Houston, SA and Denton are better than trips to Boise et al, and the NM rivalries can be continued as OOC. At least the letters behind El Paso are T and X.

It's not the trips to Houston, SA, and Denton that are the issue. It's the trips to Bowling Green, Murfreesboro, Norfolk, Charlotte, Huntington.

(03-18-2015 02:15 AM)SApuro Wrote:  UTSA turned down the MWC once and opted for a Texas friendly conference.

UTEP needs to do the same. Be grateful for having a quality conference to call home.

NMSU on the other hand is a year out from being thrown out by SBC so of course they are going to push new membership....anywhere.

This was the one thing I thought was most keeping UTEP in C-USA.

Particularly given no Dallas-based members in MWC.

It's no different and UTEP to Charlotte or SOFLA is probably farther then trips to Boise, Reno, and San Jose.

There should be no reason UTEP, UTSA, RICE, and HOUSTON shouldn't be in the MWC

WE in the West need to have a more Texas Centric conference. The East and the West divisions have little in common with the exception of USM which is now an outlier of both.

(03-18-2015 09:04 AM)ODUCoach Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 08:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Speaking only for myself, I would rather have UTEP in CUSA than the MWC. I see some kinship for UTEP with the MWC - at least UTEP is in the Mountain time zone. But I think an analysis of travel would show that UTEP is better off in CUSA. Trips to Houston, SA and Denton are better than trips to Boise et al, and the NM rivalries can be continued as OOC. At least the letters behind El Paso are T and X.

It's not the trips to Houston, SA, and Denton that are the issue. It's the trips to Bowling Green, Murfreesboro, Norfolk, Charlotte, Huntington.

Which is why 16 might be good for all of us. Get the divisions as tight as possible. Football travel means little since if 14 member then only 2 out of division games with only 1 on the road. Basketball is set with 2 games per trip. imho the other sports should be restricted to divisional play only until the post season.

New Mexico State and Idaho need to just drop down a level and join the Big Sky maybe they can actually compete for once

(03-18-2015 09:07 AM)Herd_fever Wrote:  It's no different and UTEP to Charlotte or SOFLA is probably farther then trips to Boise, Reno, and San Jose.

There should be no reason UTEP, UTSA, RICE, and HOUSTON shouldn't be in the MWC

It is just as far to Los Angeles as it is to Houston from El Paso. Why would Schools in East Texas want to move further past El Paso?

Fascinating.

I always figured UTEP would be rather torn on the issue. On one hand playing more in Texas is good politically and good for connecting with alums, but the historic rivalries, primarily along the front range have to be terribly appealing.

As to NMSU in a package it would seem to turn on a schedule need thing. Both UNM and UTEP play NMSU annually, and that poses the question of whether it is better to make it a conference game and free up a schedule slot or keep it non-conference and have less work to do filling out the schedule.

(03-18-2015 02:15 AM)SApuro Wrote:  UTSA turned down the MWC once and opted for a Texas friendly conference.

UTEP needs to do the same. Be grateful for having a quality conference to call home.

NMSU on the other hand is a year out from being thrown out by SBC so of course they are going to push new membership....anywhere.

Sorry, if UTEP moves, Rice needs to try and tag along. I still belive the Rice admin would rather return with our traditional rivals (SMU and Houston, and a fellow AAU school in Tulane), but if the AAC door is closed, we need to move to the MWC. CUSA is untentable for Rice in the long term (rivals, academics).

UTEP might need a PR frim soon. Bad move to put down your own players.

http://www.midmajormadness.com/2015/3/17...own-player

Guy I know came in to scout Hunter for a euro team. Like him a lot, said he should do well there. Said if he keeps working on his craft, could comeback to the US and play in the league.

(03-18-2015 10:00 AM)WIowl Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 02:15 AM)SApuro Wrote:  UTSA turned down the MWC once and opted for a Texas friendly conference.

UTEP needs to do the same. Be grateful for having a quality conference to call home.

NMSU on the other hand is a year out from being thrown out by SBC so of course they are going to push new membership....anywhere.

Sorry, if UTEP moves, Rice needs to try and tag along. I still belive the Rice admin would rather return with our traditional rivals (SMU and Houston, and a fellow AAU school in Tulane), but if the AAC door is closed, we need to move to the MWC. CUSA is untentable for Rice in the long term (rivals, academics).

Yes, I would want UTEP and Rice to stay together wherever that may be. Ideally for UTEP, it would be together in the MWC. For Rice, as you said, in the AAC. UTEP & Rice share a lot of history and it would be best if both schools stayed together.

(03-18-2015 10:00 AM)WIowl Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 02:15 AM)SApuro Wrote:  UTSA turned down the MWC once and opted for a Texas friendly conference.

UTEP needs to do the same. Be grateful for having a quality conference to call home.

NMSU on the other hand is a year out from being thrown out by SBC so of course they are going to push new membership....anywhere.

Sorry, if UTEP moves, Rice needs to try and tag along. I still belive the Rice admin would rather return with our traditional rivals (SMU and Houston, and a fellow AAU school in Tulane), but if the AAC door is closed, we need to move to the MWC. CUSA is untentable for Rice in the long term (rivals, academics).

I can see the logic in UTEP moving to MWC if they were ever invited which they have not been. NMSU brings nothing to CUSA or MWC. However, as to RICE, neither SMU or Tulsa are going to the MWC from AAC so who are the ATHLETIC RIVALS for Rice in MWC? Wyoming? AND, other than the Air Force Academy, who is it exactly that you consider to be an ACADEMIC RIVAL in MWC? UNLV or Boise?
Seriously, we're glad to have RICE (and other current members) in the same conference as MT.

(03-18-2015 10:27 AM)BlueRaiderBoy Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 10:00 AM)WIowl Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 02:15 AM)SApuro Wrote:  UTSA turned down the MWC once and opted for a Texas friendly conference.

UTEP needs to do the same. Be grateful for having a quality conference to call home.

NMSU on the other hand is a year out from being thrown out by SBC so of course they are going to push new membership....anywhere.

Sorry, if UTEP moves, Rice needs to try and tag along. I still belive the Rice admin would rather return with our traditional rivals (SMU and Houston, and a fellow AAU school in Tulane), but if the AAC door is closed, we need to move to the MWC. CUSA is untentable for Rice in the long term (rivals, academics).

I can see the logic in UTEP moving to MWC if they were ever invited which they have not been. NMSU brings nothing to CUSA or MWC. However, as to RICE, neither SMU or Tulsa are going to the MWC from AAC so who are the ATHLETIC RIVALS for Rice in MWC? Wyoming? AND, other than the Air Force Academy, who is it exactly that you consider to be an ACADEMIC RIVAL in MWC? UNLV or Boise?
Seriously, we're glad to have RICE (and other current members) in the same conference as MT.

WRONG!

UTEP has been invited twice, our AD rejected them both times because he thought Houston and SMU weren't going anywhere.

(03-18-2015 07:27 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  If Uab does not bring FB back, UTEP moving could be good for CUSA. If it can bring TV in flat or slightly down, you could get more per school.

That makes no sense... What does UAB bring to the FB that UTEP needs?

(03-18-2015 10:32 AM)Art Vandelay Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 10:27 AM)BlueRaiderBoy Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 10:00 AM)WIowl Wrote:  

(03-18-2015 02:15 AM)SApuro Wrote:  UTSA turned down the MWC once and opted for a Texas friendly conference.

UTEP needs to do the same. Be grateful for having a quality conference to call home.

NMSU on the other hand is a year out from being thrown out by SBC so of course they are going to push new membership....anywhere.

Sorry, if UTEP moves, Rice needs to try and tag along. I still belive the Rice admin would rather return with our traditional rivals (SMU and Houston, and a fellow AAU school in Tulane), but if the AAC door is closed, we need to move to the MWC. CUSA is untentable for Rice in the long term (rivals, academics).

I can see the logic in UTEP moving to MWC if they were ever invited which they have not been. NMSU brings nothing to CUSA or MWC. However, as to RICE, neither SMU or Tulsa are going to the MWC from AAC so who are the ATHLETIC RIVALS for Rice in MWC? Wyoming? AND, other than the Air Force Academy, who is it exactly that you consider to be an ACADEMIC RIVAL in MWC? UNLV or Boise?
Seriously, we're glad to have RICE (and other current members) in the same conference as MT.

WRONG!

UTEP has been invited twice, our AD rejected them both times because he thought Houston and SMU weren't going anywhere.

When exactly was UTEP extended a Formal Invitation to join MWC?
By the way, I hope UTEP stays in CUSA and come to the Boro so that we can pay you back for knocking us out of a Bowl Game last year.

All of this still points to the logic of all G5 conferences putting all members on the table and reshuffle geographically and from a rivalry perspective. That would barely affect the MAC but would be better for everyone else. Since that won't happen, I hope UTEP stays. If CUSA lost both UAB and UTEP it's basketball rep would suffer tremendously. Although I guess since we only had one bid this year, it wouldn't matter. I do believe that with UAB, Charlotte, LaTech, Old Dominion, UTEP, WKU, MTSU, So Miss in the fold we can definitely improve in basketball pedigree.

And if common sense ever prevailed, while its been done a hundred times, heres my suggestion:
North/Mid Atlantic: UConn, Temple, Navy, Umass, ECU, ODU, Marshall, Char., App St, WKU, MTSU, Cincy
Texas/Central: UTSA, Houston, Rice, SMU, Memphis, Tulane, Troy, Tulsa, So. Miss, La Tech, UTEP, FIU
SunBelt:La La, La Monroe, Tx State, N Texas, Ga St, Ga So, So. Fla, FAU, USA, Ark. St, UAB, UCF

The MWC and MAC stay the same. A couple dogs and a few gems in each. Everyone wins, nobody could complain about travel/rivalries. Regional TV would eat it up, and since we all recruit regionally anyway thats not such a bad thing.