(05-23-2016 12:27 PM)monarx Wrote:  Do two separate tournaments, one for the east, and one for the west in smaller venues of 8,000 or less. East could be in Charlotte, Myrtle Beach, Charleston etc., West in San Antonio, Dallas etc. for example. The two regional champs that emerge play at the highest remaining rpi team's home site 2 days later for the championship. At that point its best for the conference to have the the best team overall win, so the home court advantage is not only earned, but good for CUSA and would sell out, make money and look great on TV. Imagine being able to watch your team, in your town on your home floor playing for a trip to the dance. The atmosphere would be electric. Having the two regional tournaments would make it easier for fans to travel, and better location options that should also result in better attendance. I like this idea.

Anything suggested will have some drawbacks, and I believe you are on the right track by thinking outside the box to make it better. I do remember when C-USA 1.0 had Cincy, Charlotte, Louisville, Marquette in one division, and Memphis and a bunch of people that lost to Memphis in the other. That would make for a fairly uneven, and perhaps unfair, path to the Championship under your scenario. I do not have a better idea though.

(05-23-2016 03:38 PM)Nugget49er Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 12:27 PM)monarx Wrote:  Do two separate tournaments, one for the east, and one for the west in smaller venues of 8,000 or less. East could be in Charlotte, Myrtle Beach, Charleston etc., West in San Antonio, Dallas etc. for example. The two regional champs that emerge play at the highest remaining rpi team's home site 2 days later for the championship. At that point its best for the conference to have the the best team overall win, so the home court advantage is not only earned, but good for CUSA and would sell out, make money and look great on TV. Imagine being able to watch your team, in your town on your home floor playing for a trip to the dance. The atmosphere would be electric. Having the two regional tournaments would make it easier for fans to travel, and better location options that should also result in better attendance. I like this idea.

Anything suggested will have some drawbacks, and I believe you are on the right track by thinking outside the box to make it better. I do remember when C-USA 1.0 had Cincy, Charlotte, Louisville, Marquette in one division, and Memphis and a bunch of people that lost to Memphis in the other. That would make for a fairly uneven, and perhaps unfair, path to the Championship under your scenario. I do not have a better idea though.

Fair point, but there is no one dominant hoops team in the conference now. La Tech, ODU, MTSU, Char, Marshall, WKY, UAB, UTEP, So Miss... even Rice all have the potential to be good and would be in different divisions, so I don't think it would be a problem. If it became one, change it. I think that plan would be worth a shot though, and I think the fans, players and TV would like it more. (except for twice the production cost). CUSA would make a lot more money at the gate too.

(05-21-2016 04:24 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(05-21-2016 02:23 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Men and womens tournament should be separated.We need more flexibility.Try it for two years--if it does not work go back to the old system.

MY IDEA : HYBRID TOURNAMENT

---limit to top 8 seeds;higher seeds host 1st round

---winners advance to conf. "final four" and play per seed (hosted by highest seed left or neutral site)

---Thurs.-mens semi-finals,Fri.-womens semis, Sat.--Finals men and women(or women sun. aft.).

I like your idea. Just clean it up a bit. Remove the option of the highest seed hosting the CUSA "Final Four" tournament.

- Limit the CUSA Tournament to no more than 8 teams.

- All 1st & 2nd round games will be played in "on-campus" arenas hosted by the higher seed.

- Winners advance to a "Final Four" tournament at a neutral site.


I think this format will work great. The first couple of rounds of this format will build excitement locally with on-campus games, and the "Final Four" will have a big time reward feel to it for the players in a large media market city on a bigger stage.

Ya'll are on to something with this, great ideas and would add excitement to the conference tourneys plus benefit the hosting schools that played well during the season

Having the final four at a neutral, predesignated site, could be disastrous for the attendance and gate receipts. If it happened to be in say, Shreveport, the year LT was the top seed, then fine. If it were in Dallas with the top seeds being UAB and ODU, then very poor fan support.

In the early days of the WAC tourney, started in 1984, it was held at campus sites with the final 4 at the remaining top seed. Worked well imho and attendance was good. The problem of having the final between teams not involving the host school in that scenario could be somewhat alleviated by having a meaningless 3rd place game so that the host team fans would be more likely to show up.

Let's just get to the root of the matter I don't see anyone saying.

Our fanbases suck and don't travel. Those of us on here care. We are the ones who, if given the opportunity, are going to attend the tournament and watch our teams play. Most of our fanbase isn't like us and they aren't going to care enough to travel a ways to a tournament unless our team is phenomenal. For instance, if USM had been the 1 seed this year at the CUSA tournament, we would have brought a crowd to Birmingham. If we were the 3 seed, no chance. We may have two hundred there. That's our fanbases mentality and it's not something that changes overnight.


Bringing the tournament to home sites is a pride killer though. It makes you look like a smaller conference and outsider perception isn't the best. But sometimes you need to screw what others think and do what's best for you.

Top 8 make it in. High seed gets home game all the way to the end. Makes the regular season matter. Our NIT games 2 years ago were all General Admission seating, reasonably priced and had a tremendous atmosphere. Looked great on TV- which is something our present tournament can't offer.

Campus sites=small time.

(05-22-2016 02:25 PM)Rabonchild Wrote:  Now that we know when it comes to TV revenue we are not sharing a pie (we are in reality sharing just a piece of pie) we can't use that argument against expansion.

Are you saying that since we're splitting less money, you're more ok with getting less (of the smaller amount)?

Seems like that would be the opposite. If you offer me 1/14 of 100 bucks, I'm going to like that better than 1/16 already.

Then if you tell me it's going to be 50 bucks instead, I am less interested in splitting that money further, not more interested.

16 teams is not a conference. It's two conferences.

(05-24-2016 09:57 AM)hooverblazer Wrote:  Campus sites=small time.

1 bid league and neutral site attendance in the 100s for most games. Welcome to CUSA 3.0

(05-24-2016 09:57 AM)hooverblazer Wrote:  Campus sites=small time.

Agreed. So is playing meaningful games in an empty arena.

When WKU was in the OVC way back when, I really liked how they did the tournament. The top 8 schools made it. First round games where played
at the top four schools home floor. The winner those four game all moved to the highest remaining seed home floor for a Final Four. The first round games where played on a weekend and the Final Four was played the following Friday and Saturday nights.

This format allowed fans to make travel plans and the home team fans filled up the stands because the home team played in the night cap in the semi finals.

This could work well for CUSA.

TOO logical to be considered.Our conference bureaucracy and even school administration seem to think it is smart to act like the federal government which means "no logic allowed".

Another point.

WHAT is so wrong or unthinkable to try an idea like this for ONE YEAR ?

Simple. If it is not a success you go back to the old way.

(05-24-2016 10:08 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(05-22-2016 02:25 PM)Rabonchild Wrote:  Now that we know when it comes to TV revenue we are not sharing a pie (we are in reality sharing just a piece of pie) we can't use that argument against expansion.

Are you saying that since we're splitting less money, you're more ok with getting less (of the smaller amount)?

Seems like that would be the opposite. If you offer me 1/14 of 100 bucks, I'm going to like that better than 1/16 already.

Then if you tell me it's going to be 50 bucks instead, I am less interested in splitting that money further, not more interested.

16 teams is not a conference. It's two conferences.

I'm saying nothing from nothing leaves nothing, you got to have something if you want me. I'm saying Wichita State & Georgia St would increase our RPI and maybe help us get two teams that would go further into March Madness and potentialy earn us more NCAA tournament money. So, I'm willing to roll the dice with $43,000 of my $350,000 of TV money that these two teams will earn more for me and increase my worth as a conference than if I pocket the $43,000.

16 teams is more than a conference its 4 regions of four teams. Imagine four regional tournaments with one each in Wichita, UTEP, UAB, Atlanta. ( Packed arenas/gyms and passion for TV viewers to see.

Then our regional champions square off in either Memphis, New Orleans, Nashville or Orlando to crown our conference champion.

(05-24-2016 08:27 AM)EagNBran Wrote:  Let's just get to the root of the matter I don't see anyone saying.

Our fanbases suck and don't travel. Those of us on here care. We are the ones who, if given the opportunity, are going to attend the tournament and watch our teams play. Most of our fanbase isn't like us and they aren't going to care enough to travel a ways to a tournament unless our team is phenomenal. For instance, if USM had been the 1 seed this year at the CUSA tournament, we would have brought a crowd to Birmingham. If we were the 3 seed, no chance. We may have two hundred there. That's our fanbases mentality and it's not something that changes overnight.


Bringing the tournament to home sites is a pride killer though. It makes you look like a smaller conference and outsider perception isn't the best. But sometimes you need to screw what others think and do what's best for you.

Until we have three or four teams all coming into the tournament thinking that the weekend games are make/break for whether they are getting an NCAA at-large bid, or going to the NIT, then attendance is going to be a problem.

(05-21-2016 04:24 PM)HogDawg Wrote:  

(05-21-2016 02:23 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Men and womens tournament should be separated.We need more flexibility.Try it for two years--if it does not work go back to the old system.

MY IDEA : HYBRID TOURNAMENT

---limit to top 8 seeds;higher seeds host 1st round

---winners advance to conf. "final four" and play per seed (hosted by highest seed left or neutral site)

---Thurs.-mens semi-finals,Fri.-womens semis, Sat.--Finals men and women(or women sun. aft.).

I like your idea. Just clean it up a bit. Remove the option of the highest seed hosting the CUSA "Final Four" tournament.

- Limit the CUSA Tournament to no more than 8 teams.

- All 1st & 2nd round games will be played in "on-campus" arenas hosted by the higher seed.

- Winners advance to a "Final Four" tournament at a neutral site.

I think this format will work great. The first couple of rounds of this format will build excitement locally with on-campus games, and the "Final Four" will have a big time reward feel to it for the players in a large media market city on a bigger stage.

If I remember rightly, this got proposed once before but dropped... the problem was the idea of the "Final four" being on a neutral site and not on a campus. (of course, the tourney was almost always a Memphis hosting, so it was centrally located).

(05-27-2016 11:31 AM)Nugget49er Wrote:  

(05-24-2016 08:27 AM)EagNBran Wrote:  Let's just get to the root of the matter I don't see anyone saying.

Our fanbases suck and don't travel. Those of us on here care. We are the ones who, if given the opportunity, are going to attend the tournament and watch our teams play. Most of our fanbase isn't like us and they aren't going to care enough to travel a ways to a tournament unless our team is phenomenal. For instance, if USM had been the 1 seed this year at the CUSA tournament, we would have brought a crowd to Birmingham. If we were the 3 seed, no chance. We may have two hundred there. That's our fanbases mentality and it's not something that changes overnight.


Bringing the tournament to home sites is a pride killer though. It makes you look like a smaller conference and outsider perception isn't the best. But sometimes you need to screw what others think and do what's best for you.

Until we have three or four teams all coming into the tournament thinking that the weekend games are make/break for whether they are getting an NCAA at-large bid, or going to the NIT, then attendance is going to be a problem.

That's why I propose — and it'll never happen — taking the top four teams and having them play a round-robin at a neutral site. Generally, the top four teams are more likely to travel than the worse teams, and they should all be in contention for *some* sort of postseason, so having three games against strong RPI opponents right before Selection Sunday couldn't hurt. Plus fans might be more likely to commit to a neutral-site trip knowing that they'll be guaranteed three reasonably important games to watch.

One fly in the ointment: Would people be willing to sign off on a conference postseason in which the champion could be determined with a head-to-head tiebreaker? Or worse, if three teams go 1-1 while the fourth goes 0-3, how do you determine your champion? Regular-season finish? Point differential?

Still, I think CUSA needs to think unconventionally with their conference postseason, since it seems glaringly obvious that a 14-team cluster**** at a neutral site isn't doing it.

(05-23-2016 03:38 PM)Nugget49er Wrote:  Anything suggested will have some drawbacks, and I believe you are on the right track by thinking outside the box to make it better. I do remember when C-USA 1.0 had Cincy, Charlotte, Louisville, Marquette in one division, and Memphis and a bunch of people that lost to Memphis in the other. That would make for a fairly uneven, and perhaps unfair, path to the Championship under your scenario. I do not have a better idea though.

Memphis was never that dominant, at least in the first version of C-USA. UAB was as good as Memphis during that era or just a notch below at worst. Clyde Drexler the coach was undefeated in Memphis.

(05-27-2016 12:03 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  That's why I propose — and it'll never happen — taking the top four teams and having them play a round-robin at a neutral site. Generally, the top four teams are more likely to travel than the worse teams, and they should all be in contention for *some* sort of postseason, so having three games against strong RPI opponents right before Selection Sunday couldn't hurt. Plus fans might be more likely to commit to a neutral-site trip knowing that they'll be guaranteed three reasonably important games to watch.

One fly in the ointment: Would people be willing to sign off on a conference postseason in which the champion could be determined with a head-to-head tiebreaker? Or worse, if three teams go 1-1 while the fourth goes 0-3, how do you determine your champion? Regular-season finish? Point differential?

Still, I think CUSA needs to think unconventionally with their conference postseason, since it seems glaringly obvious that a 14-team cluster**** at a neutral site isn't doing it.

Like the innovative thinking. How about taking that one further? Instead of the last weekend of the regular season, our 3 through 14 teams have a winner advances conference tournament play-in game hosted by the 3 through 8 place finishers? The first and second place teams can play each other in an RPI booster, knowing both are going to the conference tournament seeded 1 and 2. They could even decide to play home and home on Thursday and Saturday.

There's the eight teams for the conference tournament. Whenever I read limiting the tournament to 8 teams, I wonder which 8 will that be? For March 2017, UAB, UTEP, Old Dominion and Middle Tennessee might be locks. Marshall, Charlotte, Western Kentucky, Rice and Louisiana Tech fans probably all think their school will be in the top 8, too. Someone has to finish 9th. Maybe that's why the 8-team tournament can't get traction among the athletic directors?