(03-11-2013 10:42 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  http://hamptonroads.com/2013/02/odu-will...ckage-2013

The $7M number is NOT a quote from Banowsky. Unless the ODU football beat writer/blogger has been as obsessed as we are with conference bylaws, I'd guess that the $7M number was based on a quick google search and not something Banowsky said.

This article is 2 weeks old.

(03-11-2013 09:50 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  $7M + $2.5M does not equal $8.5M.

But that is worth it for Tulsa (and the "CUSA defectors"), because ending up where you started is better than ending up behind where you started.

I firmly believe that if CUSA had not aggressively back filled and expanded like they did, the CHSA "defectors" would just go back and things would continue as they were. However, in CUSA's expansion, they have taken steps back that will take a few years of program development to make up for.

How quickly people forget and change the narrative of the past to suit their goals.

The CUSA "backfilled" to keep ECU happy and hopefully shut them up about their need for travel partners and help to potentially stave off further potential defections to the MWC. No one could agree on 2 teams, so they brought in 4.

The problem is that to justify moving the former CUSA teams sold it to their fanbases that it will be a boatload of cash and "better" teams to boot. Now since the boatload of cash is not true, 6 members are coming directly from the CUSA and 3 others are looking to leave ASAP and the fact that some comments where made to position the move, more than justifiably at the time with the expected payout looming, it is has left most of the schools leaving to the BE in a conundrum. Either go back, which the CUSA has said they are more than willing to accept, and essentially lose face with their donor and alumni base that they sold the move to and to apologize for what was publicly stated or to continue on with a move that is starting to look doomed from the start.

SMU is stuck. They refuse to be in a conference with UNT and the BE is the only option. Money or not, they cannot politically cover the move back. It is somewhat funny to hear the concerns of the alumni base when I was at Ford last weekend for the Patriot Cup on the 3rd. None are as happy as people here try to spin it and the common thread was why are we playing a bunch of school on the East coast that as just as no named as the schools we left.

ECU, UH, Tulane, UCF and Memphis could all come back, but some of those schools will be hard pressed to not have to eat some significant crow as well. I think UH and Tulane could do it easiest, but I think they are the least likely to do so after SMU.

Things are too far down the line to change now. The utter failure of the BE bid was not anything anyone fully though out, for either the CUSA or the leaving schools. Unfortunately, or fortunately for the BE, the TV negotiations took so long that CUSA filled their slots. It seems to me that Aresco sold you guys a billl a goods he could not deliver knowing full well that people would jump at the offer and by the time the deal was official it would be impossible to go back. The classic bait and switch so to say.

(03-11-2013 10:48 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 10:42 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  http://hamptonroads.com/2013/02/odu-will...ckage-2013

The $7M number is NOT a quote from Banowsky. Unless the ODU football beat writer/blogger has been as obsessed as we are with conference bylaws, I'd guess that the $7M number was based on a quick google search and not something Banowsky said.

This article is 2 weeks old.

First of all, the amount to pay as an exit fee is only $500k plus tv contract damage over the following 5 years. If their is no reduction in tv contract then no further fee. There is a requirement in the bylaws that schools leaving must put an amount in escrow to cover those possible extra fees in the future. I believe all the schools departing have done that, reportedly in the amount of about $6 million or so, except for Memphis due to the fact that they are allowed to cover their fees with ncaa credits.


I know that most posters won't open and read the article and I thought some of the commissioners comments were quite different than what you normally hear from someone in that position. It opens him up to sharp criticism as well as being viewed as someone with a fresh and open approach. What do you all think of these Banowsky quotes:

“We hope all of our members stay in our conference,” Banowsky said. “But what we don’t do is prevent them from moving forward or trying to be impediments if they try to go somewhere else.

“The main way you retain schools is by giving them what they need to be successful. That’s the best way to defend your conference. You can’t do it by putting a gun to someone’s head and say ‘stay with us.’ That’s not real world.

“We approach it a little differently than other conferences. We expect them to be part of the team while they’re here. We expect them to be open with us and also to follow the rules. But if universities feel like it’s in their best interest to re-associate, we generally just pat them on the back and say thank you for your contributions to the league and, then we move forward.

“It will be a function of opportunities they see in a different setup. Obviously, one piece of that is the revenue that a conference can generate. The fact that we’re able to generate significant revenues in comparison is helpful to us.”

(03-11-2013 10:46 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 10:41 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 10:22 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 10:16 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 09:50 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  $7M + $2.5M does not equal $8.5M.

But that is worth it for Tulsa (and the "CUSA defectors"), because ending up where you started is better than ending up behind where you started.

I firmly believe that if CUSA had not aggressively back filled and expanded like they did, the CHSA "defectors" would just go back and things would continue as they were. However, in CUSA's expansion, they have taken steps back that will take a few years of program development to make up for.

Its worth it for Tulsa apparently, if they do go and I expect they will. But in the world of conference realignment it is a gamble unlike getting an invite to a more secure and stable conference like the ACC or even the MWC.

I agree, even with the conferences you mentioned. However, the MWC is stable because no one wants any of their members. At best, their members are a long shot into a Power 5 conference. That is the only thing that has achieved stability for them. The A12 is unstable because there are quite few members, more than just UCONN and Cincy, that are legitimate contenders to be called up. Almost all of the A12 is in that group. If you are looking to move up, that is the conference to be in. If you are looking not to move down, it is also the conference to be in because Tulsa has no MWC option. Tulsa staying in C-USA 2014 would be a definite move down from C-USA 2012.

Location is why I consider the MWC to be currently stable. But while location helps them now, it isn't going to make them secure forever. Right now Hawaii is getting somewhat of the short end of the stick regarding membership. An article in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser explains the situation. Hawaii also has to subsidize travel for both the leagues it belongs to. Not sure that is a recipe for long term contentment. Some Hawaii fans believe that their future may be in the PAC 12 but that will take time to work out, if ever. There are still attractive schools in the MWC for expansion elsewhere but their location along with a very decent current media deal makes them stable for a while.

http://www.staradvertiser.com/s?action=l...=196672901

MWC does not work for Tulsa. This is not a putdown or flame of MWC, a very good confernece. But Tulsa's audience is in Oklahoma and Texas. THis is where our alumni live, our recruiting base, and very driveable or to fly to. These same conditions do not exist for Tulsa in NM, Colorado, and Wy. TU has scheduled Fresno, NM, and CSU and that's good enough.

What I really find interesting in a potential Tulsa move is it is pretty much a dagger for UTEP ever moving to the MWC. Unless the MWC adds NMSU, which I just don't see happening, Who is the MWC going to add? The long running thought would be that if a nuclear scenario ever happened for the western division of the CUSA, Tulsa and UTEP could easily move over to the MWC. Now what?

I don't see UTSA or UNT moving without a huge pay bump, just because neither are a fan of the extensive western travel and due to where their alumni bases are. Would TxSt and UTEP be enough to "move the needle" as far as the media deal goes? I am not sure that there is any real viable "option" left that would make the MWC a potential escape plan for UTEP.

Strange how all of these moves are interrelated and how some schools have seen a dramatic shift in power and position in all of this.

(03-11-2013 10:58 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 09:50 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  $7M + $2.5M does not equal $8.5M.

But that is worth it for Tulsa (and the "CUSA defectors"), because ending up where you started is better than ending up behind where you started.

I firmly believe that if CUSA had not aggressively back filled and expanded like they did, the CHSA "defectors" would just go back and things would continue as they were. However, in CUSA's expansion, they have taken steps back that will take a few years of program development to make up for.

How quickly people forget and change the narrative of the past to suit their goals.

The CUSA "backfilled" to keep ECU happy and hopefully shut them up about their need for travel partners and help to potentially stave off further potential defections to the MWC. No one could agree on 2 teams, so they brought in 4.

The problem is that to justify moving the former CUSA teams sold it to their fanbases that it will be a boatload of cash and "better" teams to boot. Now since the boatload of cash is not true, 6 members are coming directly from the CUSA and 3 others are looking to leave ASAP and the fact that some comments where made to position the move, more than justifiably at the time with the expected payout looming, it is has left most of the schools leaving to the BE in a conundrum. Either go back, which the CUSA has said they are more than willing to accept, and essentially lose face with their donor and alumni base that they sold the move to and to apologize for what was publicly stated or to continue on with a move that is starting to look doomed from the start.

SMU is stuck. They refuse to be in a conference with UNT and the BE is the only option. Money or not, they cannot politically cover the move back. It is somewhat funny to hear the concerns of the alumni base when I was at Ford last weekend for the Patriot Cup on the 3rd. None are as happy as people here try to spin it and the common thread was why are we playing a bunch of school on the East coast that as just as no named as the schools we left.

ECU, UH, Tulane, UCF and Memphis could all come back, but some of those schools will be hard pressed to not have to eat some significant crow as well. I think UH and Tulane could do it easiest, but I think they are the least likely to do so after SMU.

Things are too far down the line to change now. The utter failure of the BE bid was not anything anyone fully though out, for either the CUSA or the leaving schools. Unfortunately, or fortunately for the BE, the TV negotiations took so long that CUSA filled their slots. It seems to me that Aresco sold you guys a billl a goods he could not deliver knowing full well that people would jump at the offer and by the time the deal was official it would be impossible to go back. The classic bait and switch so to say.

If I were a professor in a business school, I would use Nbe/A12 as an example of a well intentioned effort that has run amok, and no one has the where with all or guts to stop it.

Regarding Aresco, he probably did his best and pursevered in the face of huge obstacles. But he too could not come to grips with reality, and should have told Nbe schools and invitees sooner and in detail of what was happening. I don't think he set out to be deceitful; but the consequences were deceitful none the less.

I don't see why CUSA couldn't accept schools wanting to return. The major conferences seem poised to move to 16 or beyond. CUSA could see about going there first, and attempt to start their own internal playoff. I doubt there would be much resistance from the major conferences about that, since they want to head in that direction themselves...

(03-11-2013 10:58 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  ECU, UH, Tulane, UCF and Memphis could all come back, but some of those schools will be hard pressed to not have to eat some significant crow as well. I think UH and Tulane could do it easiest, but I think they are the least likely to do so after SMU.

We are never ever ever going back to what CUSA is now!!!!!! The CUSA we left was waaay more attaractive than the mess it is now.

Please stop assuming we will ever go back to CUSA.

(03-11-2013 11:05 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 10:46 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 10:41 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 10:22 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 10:16 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  Its worth it for Tulsa apparently, if they do go and I expect they will. But in the world of conference realignment it is a gamble unlike getting an invite to a more secure and stable conference like the ACC or even the MWC.

I agree, even with the conferences you mentioned. However, the MWC is stable because no one wants any of their members. At best, their members are a long shot into a Power 5 conference. That is the only thing that has achieved stability for them. The A12 is unstable because there are quite few members, more than just UCONN and Cincy, that are legitimate contenders to be called up. Almost all of the A12 is in that group. If you are looking to move up, that is the conference to be in. If you are looking not to move down, it is also the conference to be in because Tulsa has no MWC option. Tulsa staying in C-USA 2014 would be a definite move down from C-USA 2012.

Location is why I consider the MWC to be currently stable. But while location helps them now, it isn't going to make them secure forever. Right now Hawaii is getting somewhat of the short end of the stick regarding membership. An article in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser explains the situation. Hawaii also has to subsidize travel for both the leagues it belongs to. Not sure that is a recipe for long term contentment. Some Hawaii fans believe that their future may be in the PAC 12 but that will take time to work out, if ever. There are still attractive schools in the MWC for expansion elsewhere but their location along with a very decent current media deal makes them stable for a while.

http://www.staradvertiser.com/s?action=l...=196672901

MWC does not work for Tulsa. This is not a putdown or flame of MWC, a very good confernece. But Tulsa's audience is in Oklahoma and Texas. THis is where our alumni live, our recruiting base, and very driveable or to fly to. These same conditions do not exist for Tulsa in NM, Colorado, and Wy. TU has scheduled Fresno, NM, and CSU and that's good enough.

What I really find interesting in a potential Tulsa move is it is pretty much a dagger for UTEP ever moving to the MWC. Unless the MWC adds NMSU, which I just don't see happening, Who is the MWC going to add? The long running thought would be that if a nuclear scenario ever happened for the western division of the CUSA, Tulsa and UTEP could easily move over to the MWC. Now what?

I don't see UTSA or UNT moving without a huge pay bump, just because neither are a fan of the extensive western travel and due to where their alumni bases are. Would TxSt and UTEP be enough to "move the needle" as far as the media deal goes? I am not sure that there is any real viable "option" left that would make the MWC a potential escape plan for UTEP.

Strange how all of these moves are interrelated and how some schools have seen a dramatic shift in power and position in all of this.

Every conference is a 50/50 proposition. For every conference team winning a conference game, there is going to be another confernece team losing a conference game. The bigger picture in this is who is going to be a Nbe winner and who is going to be a Nbe loser within the Nbe conference? Right now, every Nbe fan is convinced this move will "power up" their program and they will be winners. Sorry, only 1/2 of Nbe teams can be winners.

Within CUSA, winners and losers will also emerge. This is a good conference with good tv, bowls, and fan support. It will be interesting to watch what teams emerge within CUSA and those winning CUSA teams will become competitors for attention, tv, and recruits for existing Nbe teams.

I am not surprised that many SMU fans are expressing the skepticism about Nbe. A corollary to that is the fact Tulsa put together another fine recruiting class despite all the CUSA/Nbe turmoil. Evidently, high school football players are not impressed with Nbe either.

(03-11-2013 10:58 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  The CUSA "backfilled" to keep ECU happy and hopefully shut them up about their need for travel partners and help to potentially stave off further potential defections to the MWC.
.........
SMU is stuck. They refuse to be in a conference with UNT and the BE is the only option. Money or not, they cannot politically cover the move back. It is somewhat funny to hear the concerns of the alumni base when I was at Ford last weekend for the Patriot Cup on the 3rd. None are as happy as people here try to spin it and the common thread was why are we playing a bunch of school on the East coast that as just as no named as the schools we left.

UNC-Charlotte was forced down ECU's throat. That is a fact. ECU's admin wanted App State if we had to promote from FCS, NOT Charlotte. Don't get me wrong, neither option was popular among long-time Pirate fans.

Who else does SMU & Houston think they should play? It's either be an Eastern outlier in the MWC or be a Western Outlier in the "A12/Metro/whatever."

Quote:It is somewhat funny to hear the concerns of the alumni base when I was at Ford last weekend for the Patriot Cup on the 3rd. None are as happy as people here try to spin it

You are absolutely right. I am refusing to say that we moved forward, although playing Connecticut and Cincy in basketball for 2-3 seasons (which is how long the NBE will last) will be nice. SMU fans are not happy at all. However, going to a conference that includes UTSA is not an option, as dropping football would fit our larger academic goals better than aligning with UTSA. Some suggest that Houston and SMU could go to the MWC, but I highly doubt that will happen given that the MWC gave Boise a preferential deal and Boise's president Kustra rubbed UH and SMU presidents Khator and Turner the wrong way.

CUSA is a dumpster fire... it has been since 2004, and with the recent expansion, a new heap of trash was piled on to keep it lit. No one is going back to that.

(03-11-2013 11:00 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 10:48 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 10:42 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  http://hamptonroads.com/2013/02/odu-will...ckage-2013

The $7M number is NOT a quote from Banowsky. Unless the ODU football beat writer/blogger has been as obsessed as we are with conference bylaws, I'd guess that the $7M number was based on a quick google search and not something Banowsky said.

This article is 2 weeks old.

First of all, the amount to pay as an exit fee is only $500k plus tv contract damage over the following 5 years. If their is no reduction in tv contract then no further fee. There is a requirement in the bylaws that schools leaving must put an amount in escrow to cover those possible extra fees in the future. I believe all the schools departing have done that, reportedly in the amount of about $6 million or so, except for Memphis due to the fact that they are allowed to cover their fees with ncaa credits.


I know that most posters won't open and read the article and I thought some of the commissioners comments were quite different than what you normally hear from someone in that position. It opens him up to sharp criticism as well as being viewed as someone with a fresh and open approach. What do you all think of these Banowsky quotes:

“We hope all of our members stay in our conference,” Banowsky said. “But what we don’t do is prevent them from moving forward or trying to be impediments if they try to go somewhere else.

“The main way you retain schools is by giving them what they need to be successful. That’s the best way to defend your conference. You can’t do it by putting a gun to someone’s head and say ‘stay with us.’ That’s not real world.

“We approach it a little differently than other conferences. We expect them to be part of the team while they’re here. We expect them to be open with us and also to follow the rules. But if universities feel like it’s in their best interest to re-associate, we generally just pat them on the back and say thank you for your contributions to the league and, then we move forward.

“It will be a function of opportunities they see in a different setup. Obviously, one piece of that is the revenue that a conference can generate. The fact that we’re able to generate significant revenues in comparison is helpful to us.”

For Banowsky, I think he is a guy that works quietly behind the scenes. If he made public statements perceived as antagonistic or negative about SMU, Houston, Tulane, and Memphis, that would destroy all hopes of getting these schools' cooperation in the future. The old CUSA before Nbe raids won't come back; but a cooperative and coordinated effort is not out of the picture. Who knows? Like TU's acceptance of Nbe invite, damned if you do and dmaned if you don't. The whole process is now out of control and has taken on a life of its own. Not even a sane, rational commissioner has the ability to stop it at this point, it appears.

The old CUSA won't come back; there are too many Nbe leaders whose ego is at stake. So what we are ending up is with a statement by Nbe officials that: "While Nbe hasn't attained any of its goals, it is better than being stuck in CUSA!" While the latter is not true, it does provide the excuse to shift blame elsewhere, rather than where it should be--those officials who ignored the reality of history and current movements.

(03-11-2013 11:05 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 10:46 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 10:41 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 10:22 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 10:16 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  Its worth it for Tulsa apparently, if they do go and I expect they will. But in the world of conference realignment it is a gamble unlike getting an invite to a more secure and stable conference like the ACC or even the MWC.

I agree, even with the conferences you mentioned. However, the MWC is stable because no one wants any of their members. At best, their members are a long shot into a Power 5 conference. That is the only thing that has achieved stability for them. The A12 is unstable because there are quite few members, more than just UCONN and Cincy, that are legitimate contenders to be called up. Almost all of the A12 is in that group. If you are looking to move up, that is the conference to be in. If you are looking not to move down, it is also the conference to be in because Tulsa has no MWC option. Tulsa staying in C-USA 2014 would be a definite move down from C-USA 2012.

Location is why I consider the MWC to be currently stable. But while location helps them now, it isn't going to make them secure forever. Right now Hawaii is getting somewhat of the short end of the stick regarding membership. An article in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser explains the situation. Hawaii also has to subsidize travel for both the leagues it belongs to. Not sure that is a recipe for long term contentment. Some Hawaii fans believe that their future may be in the PAC 12 but that will take time to work out, if ever. There are still attractive schools in the MWC for expansion elsewhere but their location along with a very decent current media deal makes them stable for a while.

http://www.staradvertiser.com/s?action=l...=196672901

MWC does not work for Tulsa. This is not a putdown or flame of MWC, a very good confernece. But Tulsa's audience is in Oklahoma and Texas. THis is where our alumni live, our recruiting base, and very driveable or to fly to. These same conditions do not exist for Tulsa in NM, Colorado, and Wy. TU has scheduled Fresno, NM, and CSU and that's good enough.

What I really find interesting in a potential Tulsa move is it is pretty much a dagger for UTEP ever moving to the MWC. Unless the MWC adds NMSU, which I just don't see happening, Who is the MWC going to add? The long running thought would be that if a nuclear scenario ever happened for the western division of the CUSA, Tulsa and UTEP could easily move over to the MWC. Now what?

I don't see UTSA or UNT moving without a huge pay bump, just because neither are a fan of the extensive western travel and due to where their alumni bases are. Would TxSt and UTEP be enough to "move the needle" as far as the media deal goes? I am not sure that there is any real viable "option" left that would make the MWC a potential escape plan for UTEP.

Strange how all of these moves are interrelated and how some schools have seen a dramatic shift in power and position in all of this.

I think that timing was important in the results for UTEP's conference affiliation. When the alliance idea was supposedly about to be finalized, about a year ago, UTEP's admin was very positive about the idea of associating with MWC schools in what would be just a reorg of a larger conference. When that fell apart, C-USA went on to do its own expansion. The more recent opportunity for UTEP to the MWC appeared to be if one or both of BSU and SDSU stayed with the nBE. That also fell apart and now I think the MWC is set with 12 for the foreseeable future. UTEP will just have to make the best of its situation. Basketball may be quite good soon with an improving young team now and excellent recruiting class next year. Football is breaking in a new coach so hope springs eternal on that front. But if we've learned anything about conference realignment over the last couple of years, its to expect the unexpected. We'll just have to roll with the punches and see what happens. I think C-USA will be fine and most likely so will the rest of the Gof5.

(03-11-2013 11:15 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

Quote:It is somewhat funny to hear the concerns of the alumni base when I was at Ford last weekend for the Patriot Cup on the 3rd. None are as happy as people here try to spin it

You are absolutely right. I am refusing to say that we moved forward, although playing Connecticut and Cincy in basketball for 2-3 seasons (which is how long the NBE will last) will be nice. SMU fans are not happy at all. However, going to a conference that includes UTSA is not an option, as dropping football would fit our larger academic goals better than aligning with UTSA. Some suggest that Houston and SMU could go to the MWC, but I highly doubt that will happen given that the MWC gave Boise a preferential deal and Boise's president Kustra rubbed UH and SMU presidents Khator and Turner the wrong way.

SMU is pretty much stuck. There is just no real "good" option and there is no putting the genie back in the bottle at this point. Without massive upheaval SMU is headed to the BE and I am more worried about all sports not football than football itself. A 6/6 split for football is acceptable for travel, but the other sports are going to see a noticeable increase in both overall travel and "bad" weather travel that plays havoc to student athletes.

The best "compromise" for all parties involved would see UTSA, UTEP, Tulsa and TSU move the the MWC, UH, SMU, and Tulane come back to the CUSA. The only way you see that is if there is a nuclear option for the ACC and mass defections happen. Then UConn, Cinci, Temple, USF, UCF, Memphis, and ECU goes to what is left of the ACC.

It would double up CUSA in DFW and Houston, but so be it. It would pretty much sell both metro areas as "CUSA" towns for media purposes and still give some geographic sense to it all. I just don't see it.

(03-11-2013 11:26 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 11:05 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 10:46 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 10:41 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 10:22 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  I agree, even with the conferences you mentioned. However, the MWC is stable because no one wants any of their members. At best, their members are a long shot into a Power 5 conference. That is the only thing that has achieved stability for them. The A12 is unstable because there are quite few members, more than just UCONN and Cincy, that are legitimate contenders to be called up. Almost all of the A12 is in that group. If you are looking to move up, that is the conference to be in. If you are looking not to move down, it is also the conference to be in because Tulsa has no MWC option. Tulsa staying in C-USA 2014 would be a definite move down from C-USA 2012.

Location is why I consider the MWC to be currently stable. But while location helps them now, it isn't going to make them secure forever. Right now Hawaii is getting somewhat of the short end of the stick regarding membership. An article in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser explains the situation. Hawaii also has to subsidize travel for both the leagues it belongs to. Not sure that is a recipe for long term contentment. Some Hawaii fans believe that their future may be in the PAC 12 but that will take time to work out, if ever. There are still attractive schools in the MWC for expansion elsewhere but their location along with a very decent current media deal makes them stable for a while.

http://www.staradvertiser.com/s?action=l...=196672901

MWC does not work for Tulsa. This is not a putdown or flame of MWC, a very good confernece. But Tulsa's audience is in Oklahoma and Texas. THis is where our alumni live, our recruiting base, and very driveable or to fly to. These same conditions do not exist for Tulsa in NM, Colorado, and Wy. TU has scheduled Fresno, NM, and CSU and that's good enough.

What I really find interesting in a potential Tulsa move is it is pretty much a dagger for UTEP ever moving to the MWC. Unless the MWC adds NMSU, which I just don't see happening, Who is the MWC going to add? The long running thought would be that if a nuclear scenario ever happened for the western division of the CUSA, Tulsa and UTEP could easily move over to the MWC. Now what?

I don't see UTSA or UNT moving without a huge pay bump, just because neither are a fan of the extensive western travel and due to where their alumni bases are. Would TxSt and UTEP be enough to "move the needle" as far as the media deal goes? I am not sure that there is any real viable "option" left that would make the MWC a potential escape plan for UTEP.

Strange how all of these moves are interrelated and how some schools have seen a dramatic shift in power and position in all of this.

I think that timing was important in the results for UTEP's conference affiliation. When the alliance idea was supposedly about to be finalized, about a year ago, UTEP's admin was very positive about the idea of associating with MWC schools in what would be just a reorg of a larger conference. When that fell apart, C-USA went on to do its own expansion. The more recent opportunity for UTEP to the MWC appeared to be if one or both of BSU and SDSU stayed with the nBE. That also fell apart and now I think the MWC is set with 12 for the foreseeable future. UTEP will just have to make the best of its situation. Basketball may be quite good soon with an improving young team now and excellent recruiting class next year. Football is breaking in a new coach so hope springs eternal on that front. But if we've learned anything about conference realignment over the last couple of years, its to expect the unexpected. We'll just have to roll with the punches and see what happens. I think C-USA will be fine and most likely so will the rest of the Gof5.

My sentiments also. Tulsa will get Nbe's count up to 12....but this realignment circus is not over yet by a long shot. I do think you are correct to say MWC will hold at 12. Any further expansion will be a decrease in payout per MWC school. They have the NCAA basketball credits and they have BSU earning BCS bowl money. Niether Houston and SMU can boost MWC in that regard.

(03-11-2013 11:30 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 11:15 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

Quote:It is somewhat funny to hear the concerns of the alumni base when I was at Ford last weekend for the Patriot Cup on the 3rd. None are as happy as people here try to spin it

You are absolutely right. I am refusing to say that we moved forward, although playing Connecticut and Cincy in basketball for 2-3 seasons (which is how long the NBE will last) will be nice. SMU fans are not happy at all. However, going to a conference that includes UTSA is not an option, as dropping football would fit our larger academic goals better than aligning with UTSA. Some suggest that Houston and SMU could go to the MWC, but I highly doubt that will happen given that the MWC gave Boise a preferential deal and Boise's president Kustra rubbed UH and SMU presidents Khator and Turner the wrong way.

SMU is pretty much stuck. There is just no real "good" option and there is no putting the genie back in the bottle at this point. Without massive upheaval SMU is headed to the BE and I am more worried about all sports not football than football itself. A 6/6 split for football is acceptable for travel, but the other sports are going to see a noticeable increase in both overall travel and "bad" weather travel that plays havoc to student athletes.

The best "compromise" for all parties involved would see UTSA, UTEP, Tulsa and TSU move the the MWC, UH, SMU, and Tulane come back to the CUSA. The only way you see that is if there is a nuclear option for the ACC and mass defections happen. Then UConn, Cinci, Temple, USF, UCF, Memphis, and ECU goes to what is left of the ACC.

It would double up CUSA in DFW and Houston, but so be it. It would pretty much sell both metro areas as "CUSA" towns for media purposes and still give some geographic sense to it all. I just don't see it.

Logic and sanity are out the window. Egos prevail. But I think a CUSA-24 is the best solution. TO make it work, split the 4 Florida schools int0 two separate divions, UCF and USF together in one division and FAU/FIU in another division. Ditto for the Texas schools. The four division would be Southwest, Gulf, Southeast, and northeast. I assume Cincy and UConn will be in ACC and maybe UCF too. But anyway, something like this...

SW: Tulsa, UNT, UTSA, UTEP, Rice, LA Tech.
GULF: SMU, HOuston, Tulane, Memphis, FIU, FAU
SE: UCF, USF, UAB, UMT, two others
NE: Temple, ODU, Marshall, ECU, Charlotte, Navy?

(03-11-2013 11:30 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 11:15 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

Quote:It is somewhat funny to hear the concerns of the alumni base when I was at Ford last weekend for the Patriot Cup on the 3rd. None are as happy as people here try to spin it

You are absolutely right. I am refusing to say that we moved forward, although playing Connecticut and Cincy in basketball for 2-3 seasons (which is how long the NBE will last) will be nice. SMU fans are not happy at all. However, going to a conference that includes UTSA is not an option, as dropping football would fit our larger academic goals better than aligning with UTSA. Some suggest that Houston and SMU could go to the MWC, but I highly doubt that will happen given that the MWC gave Boise a preferential deal and Boise's president Kustra rubbed UH and SMU presidents Khator and Turner the wrong way.

SMU is pretty much stuck. There is just no real "good" option and there is no putting the genie back in the bottle at this point. Without massive upheaval SMU is headed to the BE and I am more worried about all sports not football than football itself. A 6/6 split for football is acceptable for travel, but the other sports are going to see a noticeable increase in both overall travel and "bad" weather travel that plays havoc to student athletes.

The best "compromise" for all parties involved would see UTSA, UTEP, Tulsa and TSU move the the MWC, UH, SMU, and Tulane come back to the CUSA. The only way you see that is if there is a nuclear option for the ACC and mass defections happen. Then UConn, Cinci, Temple, USF, UCF, Memphis, and ECU goes to what is left of the ACC.

It would double up CUSA in DFW and Houston, but so be it. It would pretty much sell both metro areas as "CUSA" towns for media purposes and still give some geographic sense to it all. I just don't see it.

SWC anyone? Some enterprising folks could get thing going...
One thing I do think we can agree on, is Banowsky's failure to maintain any semblance of a conference. He's re-active, rather than proactive.
As long as he has his office in Texas & makes his 900K per year, he's good.
Had Mike Slive still been the Commissioner, what a different history for C-USA.

(03-11-2013 11:19 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  CUSA is a dumpster fire... it has been since 2004, and with the recent expansion, a new heap of trash was piled on to keep it lit. No one is going back to that.

So, since the A12 or whatever it's called is basically the same at CUSA2.0 you are basically saying you are now back in that ol' dumpster fire. At least you get a little more $ to be in the dumpster fire this time.

(03-11-2013 11:30 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  The best "compromise" for all parties involved would see UTSA, UTEP, Tulsa and TSU move the the MWC, UH, SMU, and Tulane come back to the CUSA.

Just stop!!!!

(03-11-2013 11:30 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  The only way you see that is if there is a nuclear option for the ACC and mass defections happen. Then UConn, Cinci, Temple, USF, UCF, Memphis, and ECU goes to what is left of the ACC.

Even in a gutted ACC they still have the east coast covered. We would have just as much a shot at the ACC as you would being a new market and good programs.

I will admit down this year in fb and a dispointment in mens bb.

So nice of you to relegate us to the craptastic CUSA!!!

We are NEVER going back there how can I spell it out more?

We would go to the MWC before that happened.

(03-11-2013 11:38 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 11:30 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 11:15 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

Quote:It is somewhat funny to hear the concerns of the alumni base when I was at Ford last weekend for the Patriot Cup on the 3rd. None are as happy as people here try to spin it

You are absolutely right. I am refusing to say that we moved forward, although playing Connecticut and Cincy in basketball for 2-3 seasons (which is how long the NBE will last) will be nice. SMU fans are not happy at all. However, going to a conference that includes UTSA is not an option, as dropping football would fit our larger academic goals better than aligning with UTSA. Some suggest that Houston and SMU could go to the MWC, but I highly doubt that will happen given that the MWC gave Boise a preferential deal and Boise's president Kustra rubbed UH and SMU presidents Khator and Turner the wrong way.

SMU is pretty much stuck. There is just no real "good" option and there is no putting the genie back in the bottle at this point. Without massive upheaval SMU is headed to the BE and I am more worried about all sports not football than football itself. A 6/6 split for football is acceptable for travel, but the other sports are going to see a noticeable increase in both overall travel and "bad" weather travel that plays havoc to student athletes.

The best "compromise" for all parties involved would see UTSA, UTEP, Tulsa and TSU move the the MWC, UH, SMU, and Tulane come back to the CUSA. The only way you see that is if there is a nuclear option for the ACC and mass defections happen. Then UConn, Cinci, Temple, USF, UCF, Memphis, and ECU goes to what is left of the ACC.

It would double up CUSA in DFW and Houston, but so be it. It would pretty much sell both metro areas as "CUSA" towns for media purposes and still give some geographic sense to it all. I just don't see it.

Logic and sanity are out the window. Egos prevail. But I think a CUSA-24 is the best solution. TO make it work, split the 4 Florida schools int0 two separate divions, UCF and USF together in one division and FAU/FIU in another division. Ditto for the Texas schools. The four division would be Southwest, Gulf, Southeast, and northeast. I assume Cincy and UConn will be in ACC and maybe UCF too. But anyway, something like this...

SW: Tulsa, UNT, UTSA, UTEP, Rice, LA Tech.
GULF: SMU, HOuston, Tulane, Memphis, FIU, FAU
SE: UCF, USF, UAB, UMT, two others
NE: Temple, ODU, Marshall, ECU, Charlotte, Navy?

Egos prevail, as you said and so that lineup will not happen. What could possibly happen is that Navy says no after all, UConn, Cincy, Temple and USF move on to a severely poached ACC in a couple of years and the A-12 re-loads with USM, Marshall, Rice, Tulsa (if not already there) and perhaps UMass. We can throw all kinds of stuff at the wall and see what sticks but that makes about as much sense as anything else. C-USA would also re-load at that point with ULL, Ark St and possibly NMSU and Texas St. For the Sun Belt, their does seem to be an unending supply of FCS schools that want to move up, so they also would survive.