(03-16-2012 02:26 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: (03-16-2012 09:00 AM)Usajags Wrote: (03-15-2012 09:55 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: I'm quite sure if you guys could put together a proposal that was worth 2-3 million per school we'd be quite interested. However that's not happening.
The thing is the "Alliance" hasn't presented any numbers yet, you guys have no idea how much money is actually coming, especially if it goes to that rediculous number of 24 teams.
If the SBC were to bring in those CUSA teams mentioned, it would most likely result in a renaming of the conference to keep those teams happy.
The name of the league has nothing to do with it. If the money was going to be better in the Sun-Belt then we would join the Sun-Belt. The Sun-Belt is not really a regional league for ECU, so the talk of massive savings in travel doesn't really apply to us. Sure for USM, UAB, and Tulane it would, but we would still have to fly to every road game, and once you've gotten on a plane it's expensive. There's not a current Sun-Belt member as close to us as Marshall is, and we fly to games there. If we were located in Georgia then I could understand the appeal, but the MAC east would actually be a more regional league for our location if we had to make that choice.
What ECU needs and what it may get aren't the same thing. What ECU needs is a league that follows the Big East (pre-Westward Ho!) / ACC footprint. Right now that doesn't look possible unless there are some more FCS move-ups in the region (and with App, ODU, UNCC that's possible) or it needs the Big East to meltdown.
If that is off the table then the question is casting lot with a nation-wide effort that in reality is two conferences until championship time or saying screw it and starting from scratch.
C-USA was born with a vision of being an elite basketball conference that would also provide a football home. Considering that this year that five CUSA alums competed for the Big East hoops title and two competed for the A10 title, clearly it once was an elite hoops league. The focus shifted to football but now that has taken a hit. 18 squads have lifted the trophy as champ or co-champ of CUSA in football. Half of those titles or co-titles now belong to current entering Big East and Big XII members.
Since Louisville, USF, and Cincy left there have been 7 CUSA title games with 14 slots in those games and the departees represent half of those appearances. Houston, UCF, SMU represented only 1/4th of CUSA but half the title game appearances.
BUT Tulsa, ECU, and USM also represent 1/4th of CUSA and the other half of the title game appearances.
I would also suspect that USM and Tulsa have reservations similar to what ECU has expressed about the Alliance. I would further suspect that the three look around question the value of traveling to UTEP and further question whether Rice, Tulane, and UAB are committed enough to bring true value to their athletic departments. Last year in the BCS Rice was 82, UTEP was 94, UAB 106, and Tulane was 116.
Is the name of the game chasing markets? (all except UTEP are in large or medium markets) If it is a market chase then it doesn't really matter whether any school added is stronger than Rice or even weaker than Rice.
Is the name of the game building the strongest league? If that is the case then the question has to be asked if that can even be accomplished in the CUSA-Alliance framework given that the bottom is so weak.
In the end I think the real crux of the matter is whether ECU, USM, Tulsa are willing to walk away from some or all of UTEP, Rice, Tulane, UAB and start fresh. If the answer is NO, then the question becomes whether competing for auto bids as one of 8-12 is offset by projected revenues of being 16-24 and whether those projections are even realistic.