(04-08-2013 02:53 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote: “We've modeled it at 16, and it does kind of create some divisions that are a little more geographically connected,” Banowsky said. “We haven't acted on it. I think personally a larger conference is better because you get some efficiencies, you get the benefit of a bigger group. We don't want to lose our identity in the process. We're just kind of moderating the growth at a pace where people are comfortable. It could be folks are just comfortable (at 14).”
Well here's the news: C-USA never had an identity. Does not matter if it's 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0.....C-USA has always been a league of misfit schools that always saw the conference as a temporary home until something better came along. Say all you want about the MWC and MAC but those two leagues have an identity. C-USA does not and never will.
The identity of CUSA was defined in CUSA 2.0 as a "Southern Based Football League". What this says to me is you probably won't see a school like New Mexico State be selected.
I suppose when they mean try to put together divisions that are more connected it could be as simple as placing 1 school in each division. Georgia State in the East and Arkansas State in the West.
Georgia State is usually overlooked in the process as just another FCS upgrade but they'll be fully transitioned for 2015 or whatever date CUSA decides to go to 16. That is a lot easier to deal with than trying to transition another FCS upgrade in the East.
CUSA East: ODU, Charlotte, Marshall, WKU, MTSU, UAB, Georgia St, FAU
CUSA West: UTEP, UTSA, UNT, Rice, La Tech, Arkansas St, USM, FIU
Georgia State and Arkansas State are good for maintaining a southern identity to both divisions. The problem when you throw a school like James Madison in there with a Northeast sounding name its hard to retain a southern feel in CUSA.