Everyone keeps saying Houston needs SMU and Boise needs Airforce. What does a travel partner do, make you feel better that they are spending a ton of money to travel across the country too.

(11-04-2011 10:44 AM)first state Wrote:  Everyone keeps saying Houston needs SMU and Boise needs Airforce. What does a travel partner do, make you feel better that they are spending a ton of money to travel across the country too.

Boise and AFA don't need a travel partner because they will be football only. The travel partner is good so exp. Villavona Basketball plays Houston, its good to be able to Bus to SMU then fly back from Dallas. It does cut down some of the expenses for the non-football sports. Another example: Rutgers to Florida can now fly in to Orlando and play UCF and Bus to USF in Tampa and Fly home from there.

(11-04-2011 10:44 AM)first state Wrote:  Everyone keeps saying Houston needs SMU and Boise needs Airforce. What does a travel partner do, make you feel better that they are spending a ton of money to travel across the country too.

I think it is more about having a geographically relevant rival, similar to the PAC model.

I think it's overrated, but there are strengths to it.

First, you aren't by yourself and would have someone to talk to while on a long journey. That's a pretty big deal IMO.

Not sure.

For football only it doesnt matter except to have a rival whose fans can travel to your stadium. For all sports, it can significantly reduce travel (across the board). A basketball program from the Northeast can have a Friday/Monday lineup of flying to Houston to play Friday, driving to Dallas to play Monday and then flying back. Two road games, one trip. It is utlized much more in the non revenue sports. For this reason I dont advocate a Florida school back in CUSA, because every trip is on its own. I do advocate adding Old Dominion to CUSA in non revenue sports, because they are the perfect travel partner for ECU.

Travel partner for all sports is a very antiquated notion and it is completely irrelevant in football. And yet, for some reason, people continue to bring it up like it's somehow a real thing.

For football- it's not a big deal at all...

For other sports- it's convienence. Go play USF on Thursday, then play UCF on Saturday. Really cuts down on the travel. This is huge not necessarily basketball, but rather the olympic sports.

(11-04-2011 01:07 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Travel partner for all sports is a very antiquated notion and it is completely irrelevant in football. And yet, for some reason, people continue to bring it up like it's somehow a real thing.

As mentioned in this thread in football its irrelevant, but in all sports it saves costs and travel ware and tear on a team. Its cheaper and easier physically on a soccer team to fly to orlando on friday and play ucf, bus to USF on saturday and play USF sunday.

Travel partners are not antiquated. They are simply not relevant to football. But they are very important for basketball and many minor sports, depending on how spread out a conference is, and the Pac-10/12 has successfully utilized the concept forever. Look at a sport like volleyball for example. Oregon and OSU both fly to San Francisco on Friday. Oregon plays Cal that night, while OSU plays Stanford. The next day, they switch opponents, and then return home at night. It is a scheduling device.

The football equivalent of this would be in a year where Louisville hosts USF, they travel to UCF. On the flipside, Cincinnati would travel to USF that year, and host UCF that year. That pattern will be repeated with every pairing in the league once the new teams have been set up. Once again, they are not travel partners as far as football is concerned, but just a scheduling mechanism. As shown by my Pac-10/12 example above, though, travel partners are a very efficient tool for many other sports.