(08-14-2021 07:30 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  It'll never happen but the SB & CUSA Commissioners, AD's and Presidents need to go into a room, lock the door and work this thing out. Agree to waive exit & entrance fees and do what's best for that schools and fans.

It won't happen, because while the conferences of schools at that level are just too big to sustain the success; the way to get the most appeal is to spread out and get lots of eyeballs in lots of different places. The two things everyone is looking for in realignment is "quality of sports, and market."

To be good, you need to have a "strong league." And it's just harder for 10 of 14 to all be good out of conference than for 7 of 10 to be good out of conference; and that's what you need to get computer numbers on your side.

Dividing C-USA and SBC into regional conferences defeats the market aspect of it.

We can all make nice clean conference lines by geography, but putting Texas and Louisiana together, the eastern most teams together, and the "middle teams" together for three conferences, or two conferences, defeats the purpose of why each conference added what they did.

And of course, everyone is going to look out for their own self-interest. No one is going to "trade teams" to make both leagues better, most trading is "each person trying to win the trade."

(08-15-2021 11:54 AM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(08-14-2021 07:30 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  It'll never happen but the SB & CUSA Commissioners, AD's and Presidents need to go into a room, lock the door and work this thing out. Agree to waive exit & entrance fees and do what's best for that schools and fans.

It won't happen, because while the conferences of schools at that level are just too big to sustain the success; the way to get the most appeal is to spread out and get lots of eyeballs in lots of different places. The two things everyone is looking for in realignment is "quality of sports, and market."

To be good, you need to have a "strong league." And it's just harder for 10 of 14 to all be good out of conference than for 7 of 10 to be good out of conference; and that's what you need to get computer numbers on your side.

Dividing C-USA and SBC into regional conferences defeats the market aspect of it.

We can all make nice clean conference lines by geography, but putting Texas and Louisiana together, the eastern most teams together, and the "middle teams" together for three conferences, or two conferences, defeats the purpose of why each conference added what they did.

And of course, everyone is going to look out for their own self-interest. No one is going to "trade teams" to make both leagues better, most trading is "each person trying to win the trade."

While I agree with you to a point, if the idea to spread out out is to get "lots eyeballs in lots of different places" wouldn't NMSU & Idaho would still be in the SB? Markets do not matter for the SB, CUSA & MAC since basically all the TV money is identical. The problem lies in the small amount of TV revenue we receive can not replenish the expenses incurred flying across time zones and sacrificing big draw Saturday games. These weeknight games cost App upwards of $50K per game. This season two of our biggest draws fall during the week. It doesn't take a math major to do figure that out. These games also has a dramatic economic impact on the town. If schools are not only not benefiting financially from the wide net approach, but losing money because of it where is the incentive to continue? Seems like a clear cut definition of insanity to me.

(08-15-2021 12:32 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  While I agree with you to a point, if the idea to spread out out is to get "lots eyeballs in lots of different places" wouldn't NMSU & Idaho would still be in the SB? Markets do not matter for the SB, CUSA & MAC since basically all the TV money is identical. The problem lies in the small amount of TV revenue we receive can not replenish the expenses incurred flying across time zones and sacrificing big draw Saturday games. These weeknight games cost App upwards of $50K per game. This season two of our biggest draws fall during the week. It doesn't take a math major to do figure that out. These games also has a dramatic economic impact on the town. If schools are not only not benefiting financially from the wide net approach, but losing money because of it where is the incentive to continue? Seems like a clear cut definition of insanity to me.

Yeah, it's a case of diminishing returns. The further you go leads to more travel costs, and the more you have leads to a reduction in overall quality based on SOS math.

C-USA did what they did, not because "The 14 of us would be the best conference" but because they were replacement members who departed. It's timing and circumstance. Same with the Sun Belt.

And of course, "lots of eyeballs in lots of places" is something people drastically misunderstand and overrate. Much like attendance. Attendance and market are INDICATORS of what you're looking for, but shouldn't be the actual criteria when it comes to conference expansion. People want a linear chart they can rank by.

I don't want to offend any C-USA fans, so I'll use my league as an example.... the A-10 in the 1990s added Xavier & Dayton (great) and LaSalle & Fordham (Philly & NYC markets). Problem is, because LaSalle and Fordham have not been successful in basketball, and because there's bigger more popular schools and pro teams, no one in the Philly/NYC markets cares to watch those schools.

Fordham's market is 21 times size of Omaha. But Omaha doesn't have 15+ other colleges, 13 pro teams, etc, etc. Creighton fills the role of a pro team in Omaha.

It's a bell curve. If you look at some of the biggest US metro areas WITHOUT an NFL or NBA team... there you fill find some of the most successful college programs, because they have huge fan support. Austin (Texas), Columbus (OSU), Louisville, Hartford (UConn), Birmingham (Alabama), Tuscon (Arizona), Honolulu (UH).

Hawai'i averages 6000 fans for women's volleyball. Because UH is what Hawai'i has for sports entertainment. There's no other competition.

Everyone's always looking for "The Most." We've been trained to think in a binary and linear way. But "Market" is more like a baseball bat. All the way to the top of the bat doesn't hit home runs, the sweet spot hits home runs.

(08-14-2021 05:31 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(08-14-2021 04:28 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-14-2021 04:10 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  #6 seems to be the case... I’m not sure why they are so clingy but they are.

Unlike Marshall who now plays with almost no one who was in CUSA when they joined, they get to play two UT system schools and Rice and all is good.

True. It was a move up for them and a downgrade for us... still though. They would keep all the Texas schools if our conference were to split so I’m not sure what their issue is.

Maybe the ego of UNT folks couldn't handle the fact that this move would admit leaving the SBC was a mistake...

The question is do you form an aspirational conference that wants higher profile, or is the aim just to cut costs.

If it's just to cut costs, then why bother? The SBC is already about as compact as you get at FBS level. C-USA has already adopted a division heavy scheduling model to reduce travel. Any shuffling would result in rather minimal improvements on that front. That's a lot of headache for not much.

If it's aspirational, then it's the highest resource plus the most successful programs breaking from the lower resource and less successful programs. This implies both strong leadership and media sponsorship. There is no clear strong man in C-USA (no Texas or North Carolina or Ohio State), and there is no media sponsorship. What there is are some ADs who want better, and a 100 different ideas of shuffling, but no clear direction to improve the profile of such a shuffled group to justify a bigger media package.

What's an aspirational group from this lot anyway? ODU, Marshall, UAB, North Texas and uh, Liberty? That's not a media package core of any value.

(08-15-2021 02:03 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  Maybe the ego of UNT folks couldn't handle the fact that this move would admit leaving the SBC was a mistake...

But no one cares about things like that unless you're a fan of one team talking trash to the other team. All that matters is "where do we go from here?"

And it's absolutely NOT a mistake to make the best informed decision at the time, regardless of how the future plays out. "Not predicting the future correctly" isn't a mistake. You make reasonable assumptions based on data and trends.

These were not reasonable assumptions eight years ago:

App State will grow from a program 0-0 at the FBS level transitioning from FCS into 33-6 the last three years getting ranked in the AP Top 25?

Coastal Carolina will go from "thinking about moving up to FBS" to 11-1 and a team ESPN shuffles their schedule for in late November to get as their marquee game" ?

The New Guy at Louisiana will take the program from 1 winning season in 18 years to 8 bowls in the last 10 years and #11 in the polls this past season.

Props to them and the SBC for how things went, but no one in their right mind would BANK on those things. The security was in the bigger league with the more established programs.

(08-15-2021 02:22 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The question is do you form an aspirational conference that wants higher profile, or is the aim just to cut costs.

This is a pet-peeve of mine. Sports Talk has trained us to break down topics into binary statements people can yell at each other about. Life is more nuanced than that.

Those aren't the options, that's not the question. "What's best for our program's future?" Is the question. The options are vast.

A conference that is aspirational, gets a higher profile, and also cuts costs? If that's possible, then it would probably be better for a school than what they're in now.

(08-15-2021 02:22 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  If it's aspirational, then it's the highest resource plus the most successful programs breaking from the lower resource and less successful programs. This implies both strong leadership and media sponsorship. There is no clear strong man in C-USA (no Texas or North Carolina or Ohio State), and there is no media sponsorship. What there is are some ADs who want better, and a 100 different ideas of shuffling, but no clear direction to improve the profile of such a shuffled group to justify a bigger media package.

What's an aspirational group from this lot anyway? ODU, Marshall, UAB, North Texas and uh, Liberty? That's not a media package core of any value.

Here's where I differ in my view. Many of the things you mention are indicators, but not the end all be all. "Highest Resources" don't mean much if you're aimless and wasting money. The key component of an "aspirational conference" isn't that "We're all the same in our resources," it's the VALUES AND VISION.

See my example of St. Bonaventure and VCU. Polar opposites in the A-10, but they have the same values and vision. VCU doesn't want to ditch the Bonnies; Most the A-10 wants to ditch Fordham. Because their vision is closer to the Patriot League than the A-10.

Dividing schools up by rankings of budgets or whatever is pointless. I used overall win percentage in basketball and football as my indicators, because it's really hard to do both on the budgets that C-USA teams have.

So when I see seven teams having winning records over a decade in both, it means they know what they're doing. (And I'm including North Texas; Charlotte isn't doing it). It doesn't matter that Marshall is much smaller, or who has what budget.

Is a media deal there? Probably not. But competitively, the league I proposed would be much better on paper and get better overall results relative to the landscape. And THEN the media deal will come.

It's betting on yourself over the "security of table scraps," because you can always go back to the table scraps.

(08-15-2021 03:48 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 02:22 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The question is do you form an aspirational conference that wants higher profile, or is the aim just to cut costs.

This is a pet-peeve of mine. Sports Talk has trained us to break down topics into binary statements people can yell at each other about. Life is more nuanced than that.

Those aren't the options, that's not the question. "What's best for our program's future?" Is the question. The options are vast.

A conference that is aspirational, gets a higher profile, and also cuts costs? If that's possible, then it would probably be better for a school than what they're in now.

(08-15-2021 02:22 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  If it's aspirational, then it's the highest resource plus the most successful programs breaking from the lower resource and less successful programs. This implies both strong leadership and media sponsorship. There is no clear strong man in C-USA (no Texas or North Carolina or Ohio State), and there is no media sponsorship. What there is are some ADs who want better, and a 100 different ideas of shuffling, but no clear direction to improve the profile of such a shuffled group to justify a bigger media package.

What's an aspirational group from this lot anyway? ODU, Marshall, UAB, North Texas and uh, Liberty? That's not a media package core of any value.

Here's where I differ in my view. Many of the things you mention are indicators, but not the end all be all. "Highest Resources" don't mean much if you're aimless and wasting money. The key component of an "aspirational conference" isn't that "We're all the same in our resources," it's the VALUES AND VISION.

See my example of St. Bonaventure and VCU. Polar opposites in the A-10, but they have the same values and vision. VCU doesn't want to ditch the Bonnies; Most the A-10 wants to ditch Fordham. Because their vision is closer to the Patriot League than the A-10.

Dividing schools up by rankings of budgets or whatever is pointless. I used overall win percentage in basketball and football as my indicators, because it's really hard to do both on the budgets that C-USA teams have.

So when I see seven teams having winning records over a decade in both, it means they know what they're doing. (And I'm including North Texas; Charlotte isn't doing it). It doesn't matter that Marshall is much smaller, or who has what budget.

Is a media deal there? Probably not. But competitively, the league I proposed would be much better on paper and get better overall results relative to the landscape. And THEN the media deal will come.

It's betting on yourself over the "security of table scraps," because you can always go back to the table scraps.

A10 fans want Fordham gone. A10 presidents don’t. All of the other six Catholic members want to be affiliated with one of the preeminent Catholic universities in the US. Fordham is a great institutional and geographic fit.

When Davidson joined they were given explicit expectations from the A10 about their basketball budget, the size of the coaching staff, scheduling, etc. That’s the shared vision and Fordham complies with it. They just can’t get out of their own way and make a decent coaching hire. The rest of the A10 would like Fordham to have a better facility than Rose Hill. That’s about it.

We already know that the media rights for CUSA and SBC schools are worth a six-figure amount. Resorting them isn’t going to make a material difference in the value of their media rights.

(08-15-2021 05:32 PM)LostInSpace Wrote:  A10 fans want Fordham gone. A10 presidents don’t. All of the other six Catholic members want to be affiliated with one of the preeminent Catholic universities in the US. Fordham is a great institutional and geographic fit.

When Davidson joined they were given explicit expectations from the A10 about their basketball budget, the size of the coaching staff, scheduling, etc. That’s the shared vision and Fordham complies with it. They just can’t get out of their own way and make a decent coaching hire. The rest of the A10 would like Fordham to have a better facility than Rose Hill. That’s about it.

We already know that the media rights for CUSA and SBC schools are worth a six-figure amount. Resorting them isn’t going to make a material difference in the value of their media rights.

Oh, of course the FANS are the ones who want to ditch Fordham. It's such a tired topic in the sense that no one is getting kicked out of a conference.

The media rights for those members are worth so little because of a lack of success, and a lack of a fan base watching that success on TV. SBC's is probably growing at a higher rate because they're having some success in football.

If your league has more success, more meaningful success, then the media rights will follow because more people will want to watch that success.

(08-15-2021 05:32 PM)LostInSpace Wrote:  A10 fans want Fordham gone. A10 presidents don’t. All of the other six Catholic members want to be affiliated with one of the preeminent Catholic universities in the US. Fordham is a great institutional and geographic fit.

Preeminent? If that was the criteria, why not pick Holy Cross?

(08-15-2021 05:32 PM)LostInSpace Wrote:  When Davidson joined they were given explicit expectations from the A10 about their basketball budget, the size of the coaching staff, scheduling, etc. That’s the shared vision and Fordham complies with it. They just can’t get out of their own way and make a decent coaching hire. The rest of the A10 would like Fordham to have a better facility than Rose Hill. That’s about it.

One NCAA bid since 1971. No Top 25 ranking (not even receiving votes) since 1971. Aside from some old sportswriters at the NY Post, there is next to no fan interest left outside of campus. It's not NYU, but it's certainly not St. John's.

Fordham basketball has been a failure in the A-10. They just don't want to say so.

(08-15-2021 01:02 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 12:32 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  While I agree with you to a point, if the idea to spread out out is to get "lots eyeballs in lots of different places" wouldn't NMSU & Idaho would still be in the SB? Markets do not matter for the SB, CUSA & MAC since basically all the TV money is identical. The problem lies in the small amount of TV revenue we receive can not replenish the expenses incurred flying across time zones and sacrificing big draw Saturday games. These weeknight games cost App upwards of $50K per game. This season two of our biggest draws fall during the week. It doesn't take a math major to do figure that out. These games also has a dramatic economic impact on the town. If schools are not only not benefiting financially from the wide net approach, but losing money because of it where is the incentive to continue? Seems like a clear cut definition of insanity to me.

Yeah, it's a case of diminishing returns. The further you go leads to more travel costs, and the more you have leads to a reduction in overall quality based on SOS math.

C-USA did what they did, not because "The 14 of us would be the best conference" but because they were replacement members who departed. It's timing and circumstance. Same with the Sun Belt.

CUSA was in a bit of a bind, but it's not like you couldn't see this coming. Banowsky made decisions based on his misguided idea that even relatively unknown programs in large markets would appeal to TV Exec's somewhat like the better known programs that bolted. It was obviously a failed strategy that has now put CUSA at a competitive disadvantage. He thought his approach to would bury the SB, but it has had the exact opposite affect. Today CUSA is in disarray and their teams are basically saying they want out while SB teams are flourishing. You know what they say about karma....

(08-15-2021 02:03 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(08-14-2021 05:31 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(08-14-2021 04:28 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-14-2021 04:10 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  #6 seems to be the case... I’m not sure why they are so clingy but they are.

Unlike Marshall who now plays with almost no one who was in CUSA when they joined, they get to play two UT system schools and Rice and all is good.

True. It was a move up for them and a downgrade for us... still though. They would keep all the Texas schools if our conference were to split so I’m not sure what their issue is.

Maybe the ego of UNT folks couldn't handle the fact that this move would admit leaving the SBC was a mistake...

You're joking right? UNT now is conferencing in the same division with Rice, LA Tech, Southern Miss, UAB, and UTEP. It was a great move for North Texas. Since leaving the Sun Belt 9 years ago, UNT has doubled our athletic budget from $20 million to $40 million. I don't know if any other G5 has done that in the past decade. We bought our basketball coach from a Sun Belt program for $500,000 and now we pay him around $800,000 a year and win titles. Facilities keep going up (2018-soccer/track, 2019-indoor practice facility, 2021-softball, and 2021-golf) and the future looks bright for UNT. Leaving the Sun Belt was the best conference move UNT ever made.

(08-14-2021 09:37 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(08-14-2021 09:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-14-2021 09:11 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(08-14-2021 07:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  N Texas
UTSA
Rice
UTEP
LaTech
ULL
ArkSt
S Miss
UAB

Something like that for N Texas would not be a bad football league. Eazy Peezy travel--some good rivalries. Downside is basketball would not be good at all---but the baseball league would be very nice.

No. We don't need to carry ULM or add Texas State. The remaining 9 would make a fine football conference. Basketball would be just okay. UTEP is historic. UNT, LA Tech, and UAB are all solid. And Rice is supposed to be on the rise.

If you can do it without ULM---Id do it. Texas St is not like ULM. Texas State has one of the biggest budgets in the SB and spends like a CUSA team. The have good facilities and a great location. Its not a matter if they will become a strong competitior in a conference like that---its just a matter of when. Dont be surprised if that program emerges from its slumber over the next few years. Most believe the longtime AD there was the real problem and he is now leaving the building. I still like my idea of a SWC conference with a 5 or 6 team "Texas Division" (all teams in Texas) and a 5 or 6 team "Border Division" constructed of teams in states surrounding Texas. The CCG would always be a Texas team vs a non-Texas team from a bordering State. I think something like that could be fun and really take off.

Yeah, and if you placed UNT in the American you could say the same thing about us. But, I don't see you advocating for us to be invited to fill your 12th membership spot... and I'm not asking you to either.

There are already too many FBS programs in Texas. Texas State can stay on an island in the Sun Belt. Just like neither SMU nor Houston is looking to help us move up, I see no reason why we should give Texas State a helping hand. The UNT athletic brand is growing stronger every season. We will earn our way. Texas State will have to do the same.

To be fair, Ive been very consistent about what we need in that 12th slot. We need a school with a strong brand, good TV value, top 200 USNWR academics, with good football and at good basketball program. Not a lot of those floating around out there. As a school—we have always been a good neighbor and have never avoided scheduling the Sunbelt and CUSA schools in Texas. Houston regularly schedule all the in-state FBS schools that will play us. We played N Texas in 2019 and have a UTSA next year.

One thing I have never done is advocate against anyone because I was afraid there would be too much area competition. I’ve never cared for the whole freezing schools out thing. For the record--Houston advocated for both Rice and SMU when they joined CUSA. Heck---my favorite times were when we were in a conference with 8 teams from Texas. I'd love it if the AAC could merge with the Big12 leftovers---that would mean 5 Texas teams in the same conference and Houston would have regular games against Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, and SMU. To me—when you actually know other folks who attended the other schools in your league—-that’s a fun conference.

(08-15-2021 09:33 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Preeminent? If that was the criteria, why not pick Holy Cross?

One NCAA bid since 1971. No Top 25 ranking (not even receiving votes) since 1971. Aside from some old sportswriters at the NY Post, there is next to no fan interest left outside of campus. It's not NYU, but it's certainly not St. John's.

Fordham basketball has been a failure in the A-10. They just don't want to say so.

I think Holy Cross was an initial Big East target, and BC was the second choice. But the point remains: Fordham is a Patriot League school, playing in the Atlantic 10.

And everyone in the A-10 would say so.... if Fordham would just join the Patriot League already. Until then, Fordham is a valuable member of the Atlantic 10 Conference!

(08-15-2021 11:52 PM)AppManDG Wrote:  CUSA was in a bit of a bind, but it's not like you couldn't see this coming. Banowsky made decisions based on his misguided idea that even relatively unknown programs in large markets would appeal to TV Exec's somewhat like the better known programs that bolted. It was obviously a failed strategy that has now put CUSA at a competitive disadvantage. He thought his approach to would bury the SB, but it has had the exact opposite affect. Today CUSA is in disarray and their teams are basically saying they want out while SB teams are flourishing. You know what they say about karma....

I mean, my opinions on conference expansion were shaped long before the C-USA 3.0 expansion, so I fully understand the spot the C-USA was in. I believe the points you make on "market residence vs market PRESENCE" are totally correct.

That being said, C-USA's 2013 expansion suffered more from a "trickle out, trickle in" situation than from a bad philosophy.

It's really easy to look back NOW and say "They should have taken X or Y."

In 2012, people were lauding the additions of UNT and UTSA because they effectively "walled off Texas" from the MWC. La Tech was among the first invites and they're one of the best programs in terms of success, and less in terms of market.

The "Markets" C-USA added at the expense of "good sports programs" were actually two of the last three additions: Charlotte and Old Dominion with WKU, as Charlotte and ODU were upgrading from FCS.

It really boils down to... the downgrade from UCF/USF to FAU/FIU.

FAU is 91-115 (.442) in Football all-time (2004) and 227-319 (.416) in basketball in that span.
FIU is 72-127 (.362) in Football all-time (2004) and 217-333 (.395) in basketball in that span.
(This is news to me, I thought FIU was better than FAU).

(08-16-2021 12:28 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  For the record--Houston advocated for both Rice and SMU when they joined CUSA.

I did not know that.

Houston is one of the programs that causes me the most internal conflict.

As an anti-BCS/P5 fan of an Atlantic 10 program, I will root for Houston over any P5/BCS school. Houston advocating for Rice and SMU is definitely something that would make me root for them.

That being said, they're still the same program that were throwing fourth quarter bombs on a walk-on SMU team after they came back from the death penalty when they were up like, 77 points. And when I lived in NOLA and followed Tulane... broke collarbones like this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXG74PFs4N8

(08-16-2021 01:22 AM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(08-16-2021 12:28 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  For the record--Houston advocated for both Rice and SMU when they joined CUSA.

I did not know that.

Houston is one of the programs that causes me the most internal conflict.

As an anti-BCS/P5 fan of an Atlantic 10 program, I will root for Houston over any P5/BCS school. Houston advocating for Rice and SMU is definitely something that would make me root for them.

That being said, they're still the same program that were throwing fourth quarter bombs on a walk-on SMU team after they came back from the death penalty when they were up like, 77 points. And when I lived in NOLA and followed Tulane... broke collarbones like this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXG74PFs4N8

No excuse for that hit.

As for the SMU game—-there are reasons that happened. Just so you know, Andre Ware was pulled at halftime and did not take a single snap in the second half. The backup was the guy who threw all those second half TD’s. That guy was David Klingler who would go on to become a starting NFL QB.

The coaches put the second and third string players in on both offense and defense—but in some ways that kinda backfired. The problem was the Ponies were so thin that their starting defensive backs had to play the whole game and sending in our second and third team guys meant we were sending fresh receivers at them late in the game. So you have a talented backup QB looking at wide open guys running 10 yards from the nearest DB. The kid was just making his reads and throwing. The backup wants coaches to see he can run the offense—-i don’t think the intent was to run up the score. The truth is Pardee and Gregg were friends. It was just a bad situation. Furthermore—for some reason SMU stayed in man coverage the entire game and refused to go to a zone defense which would have slowed the offense down and made it work the underneath routes. Then there is the argument that Houston could have dumped its regular offense and just run the ball.

Maybe that would have helped—-but I don’t even know if running the ball more would have mattered. Later that same season, with Notre Dame up on SMU 59-6 the Notre Dame RB’s would break into the open field, turn to the sideline, and purposely run out of bounds rather than run for a TD. Some felt that was great sportsmanship—while others found that charitable action embarrassing and even more humiliating than an extra TD. That SMU team was so overmatched at times it was just a no win situation for opponents. That said, I think both Houston and SMU mishandled some aspects of that game and would probably do some things differently if they had a mulligan.

(08-16-2021 12:22 AM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 02:03 PM)JTApps1 Wrote:  

(08-14-2021 05:31 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(08-14-2021 04:28 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(08-14-2021 04:10 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  #6 seems to be the case... I’m not sure why they are so clingy but they are.

Unlike Marshall who now plays with almost no one who was in CUSA when they joined, they get to play two UT system schools and Rice and all is good.

True. It was a move up for them and a downgrade for us... still though. They would keep all the Texas schools if our conference were to split so I’m not sure what their issue is.

Maybe the ego of UNT folks couldn't handle the fact that this move would admit leaving the SBC was a mistake...

You're joking right? UNT now is conferencing in the same division with Rice, LA Tech, Southern Miss, UAB, and UTEP. It was a great move for North Texas. Since leaving the Sun Belt 9 years ago, UNT has doubled our athletic budget from $20 million to $40 million. I don't know if any other G5 has done that in the past decade. We bought our basketball coach from a Sun Belt program for $500,000 and now we pay him around $800,000 a year and win titles. Facilities keep going up (2018-soccer/track, 2019-indoor practice facility, 2021-softball, and 2021-golf) and the future looks bright for UNT. Leaving the Sun Belt was the best conference move UNT ever made.

Wouldn’t your budget increasing have also happened if you remained in the Sun Belt? Your massive student body voted on an increase of student fees to be used for athletics, and that adds up.. I think being in a division where there are multiple Texas teams was certainly a win for UNT, but I don’t know that we could assume the budget and facility improvements wouldn’t have happened in the Sun Belt. After all, you built your new football stadium while in the Sun Belt.

(08-14-2021 07:30 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  

(08-14-2021 03:19 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  

(08-14-2021 07:56 AM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote:  Why would I want North Texas in that conference? I have no interest in seeing UNT relegated to a small regional east coast conference. I want UNT playing the best programs we can schedule. The cost doesn't matter. The travel doesn't matter. No one can elevate their program by isolating their athletics into cheap regional conferences. That is a formula for irrelevance. No wonder the once respected Marshall program has regressed over the past 20 years.

1. Literally EVERY SCHOOL THAT IS GOOD built themselves in a small regional conference that was cheap and isolated. That's why conferences started.

2. Someone who did elevate their program by isolating athletics into a cheap regional conference in the modern era: Gonzaga. What do you think the WCC is?

3. Best programs you can schedule? These are literally the teams in your conference NOW.

4. Formula for irrelevance? Again, this is your current conference! If this new conference would be irrelevant without 6 of the worst 7 programs from C-USA, what the hell are you WITH the bottom of the league?

5. The once respected Marshall program has regressed over 20 years? (Ignoring whether or not that's actually true) They joined C-USA 16 years ago! So if you feel were respected, that occurred in the MAC! Which is what? A cheap regional conference! And they've fallen off the map by BEING IN C-USA. Which is all the more reason to split in half (And invite UNT after the dust settles).

6. In all seriousness, your post makes me wonder if talking about half of C-USA leaving North Texas behind rubbed up against an abandonment issue nerve.

1. This isn't 1910. Things have changed. Regional conferences are becoming irrelevant.
2. I actually believe C-USA has potential, and would like to see it succeed. But, it looks like some saboteurs needs to be removed before the conference can flourish.
3. See answer number 2.
4. Programs need exposure outside of their region. That is why Marshall needs to keep Florida schools for recruiting. I like that UNT will travel anywhere and host any quality program.
5. Marshall has been in C-USA for 16 seasons and won 1 football title in that time, and 1 basketball title. They were once better than that.

6. As I stated, UNT doesn't want an invitation to their regional east coast fantasy. We are building our program in C-USA, and we'll continue our growth regardless of the annual gripping from the likes of Marshall and ODU. We all know they aren't going anywhere. No one wants them. If any conference wanted them, they'd already be gone. They can't take half of C-USA and form a new conference. If they could they'd have done that by now too. I'd probably feel sorry for them if I wasn't tired of their gripping. Now, I actually wish they'd abandon C-USA.

I imagine if my school had paltry ticket sales and donors then our admin wouldn't care so much about having regional rivals either. But you actually do have in conference regional rivals and still don't do **** at the box office. People in Denton don't care about UNT so your plan is to travel the world looing for someone who does. Smart.

(08-15-2021 09:33 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(08-15-2021 05:32 PM)LostInSpace Wrote:  A10 fans want Fordham gone. A10 presidents don’t. All of the other six Catholic members want to be affiliated with one of the preeminent Catholic universities in the US. Fordham is a great institutional and geographic fit.

Preeminent? If that was the criteria, why not pick Holy Cross?

(08-15-2021 05:32 PM)LostInSpace Wrote:  When Davidson joined they were given explicit expectations from the A10 about their basketball budget, the size of the coaching staff, scheduling, etc. That’s the shared vision and Fordham complies with it. They just can’t get out of their own way and make a decent coaching hire. The rest of the A10 would like Fordham to have a better facility than Rose Hill. That’s about it.

One NCAA bid since 1971. No Top 25 ranking (not even receiving votes) since 1971. Aside from some old sportswriters at the NY Post, there is next to no fan interest left outside of campus. It's not NYU, but it's certainly not St. John's.

Fordham basketball has been a failure in the A-10. They just don't want to say so.

Holy Cross was already in the Patriot and not interested in the A10 when Fordham was invited. Institutionally Fordham ought to be able to have at least Richmond’s level of occasional success. Instead they’ve made one bad decision after another in men’s basketball.

Not interested in nit picking over Fordham’s stature. They’re more prominent and have greater financial resources than the other A10 Catholics which is what matters.