Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)


Post Reply 
CUSA Expansion On Hold 12-15 Months ?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Saint3333 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,412
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 854
I Root For: App State
Location:
Post: #41
RE: CUSA Expansion On Hold 12-15 Months ?
App State's is WASU.

Never thought about the "W" vs. "K" call letter for radio stations. Come to find out All broadcast call signs in the United States begin with either "K" or "W", with "K" usually west of the Mississippi River and "W" usually east of it (except in Louisiana and Minnesota, which don't strictly follow the dividing line between the two groups).

Why would someone designate "W" as East? Much like this realignment movement, this doesn't make sense.
06-18-2012 08:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BRtransplant Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,270
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 53
I Root For: La Tech
Location:
Post: #42
RE: CUSA Expansion On Hold 12-15 Months ?
(06-18-2012 06:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Ok..USM and ECU are grabbed up in the next round. Who wants to leave the Sun Belt in that case for CUSA? I'm not sure anyone should leave the Sun Belt in that case except FAU. Does anyone want to bust the travel budget to play Rice, Tulane, UAB, FIU, UNT, UTSA, UNCC, UTEP, Tulsa, Old Dominion, Marshall, and La Tech? Of the 12 teams likely left in the CUSA after a further nBE raid, who is left to justify leaving? And it gets even worse if the MWC takes Tulsa.

UTSA doesn't have a FBS schedule this year. UNCC won't be up and running till 2017. UAB is a disaster. Tulane and Rice aren't moving in the right direction. UNT hasn't had a winning season in 6 years. FIU has had two winning seasons - ever. UTEP hasn't had a winning season in years. Old Dominion is a move up. La Tech, while having a good season last year, has hardly been much to covet recently. Marshall is a good program - in a faraway and difficult to reach place for all except WKU and MTSU.

Unless the Big East and/or MWC poach UTSA or UNT (which I don't see), I don't see a CUSA (without USM/ECU and possibly Tulsa) having much to offer. Do you really think a conference like that is going to hold onto 6 bowl tie ins? Or have much to sell to the TV networks? I just see a lot of travel in the most likely CUSA expansion scenario.

Of course, its possible that CUSA tries to damage the Belt irrespective of a raid by the nBE/MWC by going after MTSU and/or WKU. That would not be good. But I think that the lower money per institution is going to drive opposition by many of the existing schools to avoid further dilution.

In other words, we are good for the next year. And in the most likely CUSA expansion scenario, we're probably good as well.
MT to CUSA is all but a sure thing in the next round of realignment. The question will be whether or not CUSA opts to take either of FAU or WKU. Both have attributes that would make them attractive, and both would accept in a heartbeat.
06-19-2012 05:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BRtransplant Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,270
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 53
I Root For: La Tech
Location:
Post: #43
RE: CUSA Expansion On Hold 12-15 Months ?
(06-18-2012 03:31 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  
(06-18-2012 02:44 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  Of course CUSA's going to wait a year or more. They cant swallow anymore right now.

This allows them, in their mind, to cherry pick which of our programs are both successful and in a market. In other words, if Middle Tennessee has a horrible season, they (might) not be at the top of the list.

I think a grant of rights for five years should be agreeable to all. Except MTSU and possibly FAU and WKU. The risk is that if CUSA discovers its about to be implemented, they could destabilize our league. If 10 or 11 of the schools signed it, the non signatory could be expelled from the league.

I think we're pretty much stuck with this sense of we're vulnerable until we win our way above CUSA.

Why would you think the grants of rights would be agreeable to the rest, because you think MTSU, FAU and WKU are the only viable candidates for CSUA? I think you are making huge assumptions, four years is a long time.

ULL would be agreeable to the grants of rights because the Sun Belt is its only option at this point. ULL has no chance at CUSA membership right now because CUSA already has two members from Louisiana. MT, WKU, and FAU do not face that same hurdle. All three have very good chances at being selected by CUSA in the next round of realignment and would therefore, never sign such an agreement. I don't believe ASU or Texas State would sign it either.
06-19-2012 06:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrazyCajun Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,317
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 60
I Root For: Louisiana
Location:
Post: #44
RE: CUSA Expansion On Hold 12-15 Months ?
(06-19-2012 06:10 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  
(06-18-2012 03:31 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  
(06-18-2012 02:44 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  Of course CUSA's going to wait a year or more. They cant swallow anymore right now.

This allows them, in their mind, to cherry pick which of our programs are both successful and in a market. In other words, if Middle Tennessee has a horrible season, they (might) not be at the top of the list.

I think a grant of rights for five years should be agreeable to all. Except MTSU and possibly FAU and WKU. The risk is that if CUSA discovers its about to be implemented, they could destabilize our league. If 10 or 11 of the schools signed it, the non signatory could be expelled from the league.

I think we're pretty much stuck with this sense of we're vulnerable until we win our way above CUSA.

Why would you think the grants of rights would be agreeable to the rest, because you think MTSU, FAU and WKU are the only viable candidates for CSUA? I think you are making huge assumptions, four years is a long time.

ULL would be agreeable to the grants of rights because the Sun Belt is its only option at this point. ULL has no chance at CUSA membership right now because CUSA already has two members from Louisiana. MT, WKU, and FAU do not face that same hurdle. All three have very good chances at being selected by CUSA in the next round of realignment and would therefore, never sign such an agreement. I don't believe ASU or Texas State would sign it either.

ULL would not be agreeable to anything that would cost them more money down the road, that wouldn't make sense. Secondly, we are not talking right now, but possibly two to four years down the road. CUSA is not going to make any more moves now or next year. The only concerns for ULL is Tulane and Rice, not having two programs from Louisiana in the conference now. Both programs see what Hudspeth is capable of doing with recruiting the I-10 corridor and are scared to death to have ULL between New Orleans and Houston. Both programs have become less relevant in football every year.

UL's financial commitments will decide their future. The administration has now been put on notice that if they do not make the financial commitments to move the athletic program forward while Hudspeth is under contract, current and potential donors will be done. A new master facility plan is to be released in August and September, designating priority projects and cost. We will see what happens after that, but we are going to find out what UL's commitment will be very soon.
06-19-2012 08:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #45
RE: CUSA Expansion On Hold 12-15 Months ?
Grant of rights makes no sense.

No one has done a grant that extended past the length of their TV deal.

Let's say we sign a 5 year TV contract starting July 1, 2013 and say the contract is worth $1.5 million per year (roughly 50% increase). Hypothetical member School X gives a grant of their TV rights from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2017.

On May 1, 2014 School X accepts an invite to join SWC II. Their last day in the Sun Belt is June 30, 2015. Under a grant of rights, the Sun Belt holds the rights to their home football games in the 2015 and 2016. That places ten to 12 games under the Sun Belt TV package. Presumably 8 of those are home games against other members of SWC II. Another two are early season FCS. Any others are FBS non-conference opponents. SWC II isn't really that deterred from taking School X because they will still have 8 games that are part of their TV package (the 8 road games).

School X though probably sues to get those rights back. Courts generally don't like specific performance as a remedy nor unreasonable burdens on freedom to contract or to associate. School X is going to point out that at most those rights are worth $242,000 and tender an offer to purchase those rights for that amount (assuming 2/3rds of the $1.5 million is football and 1/3rd basketball and School X is 1/10th of football and 1/12th of basketball). Then they are going to haul in the commissioner and someone from ESPN and CSS/CST to see if the TV partners have moved to exercise their right to reduce the TV deal. As we've seen in other similar deals, that's a crap shoot. Sometimes they've exercised it and sometimes not. If they have not, then you've just produced market-based evidence that the rights of School X have no significant value in and of themself as it relates to the league. School X is further asserting that the grant interferes with interstate commerce and since the 11 other members are all state institutions acting collectively this is state action imposing an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce and should be voided.

In the end School X buys its rights back for a couple hundred thousand dollars and everything goes on as always.
06-19-2012 09:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fanof49ASU Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,813
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 258
I Root For: stAte
Location: Nashville, TN
Post: #46
RE: CUSA Expansion On Hold 12-15 Months ?
(06-19-2012 09:38 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Grant of rights makes no sense.

No one has done a grant that extended past the length of their TV deal.

Let's say we sign a 5 year TV contract starting July 1, 2013 and say the contract is worth $1.5 million per year (roughly 50% increase). Hypothetical member School X gives a grant of their TV rights from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2017.

On May 1, 2014 School X accepts an invite to join SWC II. Their last day in the Sun Belt is June 30, 2015. Under a grant of rights, the Sun Belt holds the rights to their home football games in the 2015 and 2016. That places ten to 12 games under the Sun Belt TV package. Presumably 8 of those are home games against other members of SWC II. Another two are early season FCS. Any others are FBS non-conference opponents. SWC II isn't really that deterred from taking School X because they will still have 8 games that are part of their TV package (the 8 road games).

School X though probably sues to get those rights back. Courts generally don't like specific performance as a remedy nor unreasonable burdens on freedom to contract or to associate. School X is going to point out that at most those rights are worth $242,000 and tender an offer to purchase those rights for that amount (assuming 2/3rds of the $1.5 million is football and 1/3rd basketball and School X is 1/10th of football and 1/12th of basketball). Then they are going to haul in the commissioner and someone from ESPN and CSS/CST to see if the TV partners have moved to exercise their right to reduce the TV deal. As we've seen in other similar deals, that's a crap shoot. Sometimes they've exercised it and sometimes not. If they have not, then you've just produced market-based evidence that the rights of School X have no significant value in and of themself as it relates to the league. School X is further asserting that the grant interferes with interstate commerce and since the 11 other members are all state institutions acting collectively this is state action imposing an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce and should be voided.

In the end School X buys its rights back for a couple hundred thousand dollars and everything goes on as always.

Arkstfan beat me to it again, and saved me some typing.

07-coffee3
06-19-2012 09:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #47
RE: CUSA Expansion On Hold 12-15 Months ?
(06-18-2012 08:46 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  App State's is WASU.

Never thought about the "W" vs. "K" call letter for radio stations. Come to find out All broadcast call signs in the United States begin with either "K" or "W", with "K" usually west of the Mississippi River and "W" usually east of it (except in Louisiana and Minnesota, which don't strictly follow the dividing line between the two groups).

Why would someone designate "W" as East? Much like this realignment movement, this doesn't make sense.

OT - the "W" and "K" designations actually came from the original companies that owned the first Radio Stations in the 20's. W stood for Westinghouse (I think) and the K was for a company that started with a K. After a while, the Mississippi river was used as the dividing line for the call letters, regardless of the ownership of the stations.

However, original stations that had W or K call letter on the 'wrong' side of the Mississippi kept their call letter. Therefore, you get KDKA in Pittsburgh, and WFAA in Dallas (or WHO in Des Moines). Any station with a misnamed first letter (or a three letter call sign) is operating under a really old license.

The W versus K designation is determined by the location of the original licensed transmitter. As a result, you can get many stations in New Orleans that have K names, because their transmitter is across the river.

It gets even stranger in San Diego. The Fox Affiliate actually is in Mexico and starts with an X. And the country music station in San Diego, being based in Mexico, has to break into programming several times daily to play the Mexican National anthem (as well as carry Mexican government notices regarding pension and health plans - which they do in English (!)).
(This post was last modified: 06-19-2012 10:10 AM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
06-19-2012 10:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #48
RE: CUSA Expansion On Hold 12-15 Months ?
(06-19-2012 05:52 AM)BRtransplant Wrote:  
(06-18-2012 06:39 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Ok..USM and ECU are grabbed up in the next round. Who wants to leave the Sun Belt in that case for CUSA? I'm not sure anyone should leave the Sun Belt in that case except FAU. Does anyone want to bust the travel budget to play Rice, Tulane, UAB, FIU, UNT, UTSA, UNCC, UTEP, Tulsa, Old Dominion, Marshall, and La Tech? Of the 12 teams likely left in the CUSA after a further nBE raid, who is left to justify leaving? And it gets even worse if the MWC takes Tulsa.

UTSA doesn't have a FBS schedule this year. UNCC won't be up and running till 2017. UAB is a disaster. Tulane and Rice aren't moving in the right direction. UNT hasn't had a winning season in 6 years. FIU has had two winning seasons - ever. UTEP hasn't had a winning season in years. Old Dominion is a move up. La Tech, while having a good season last year, has hardly been much to covet recently. Marshall is a good program - in a faraway and difficult to reach place for all except WKU and MTSU.

Unless the Big East and/or MWC poach UTSA or UNT (which I don't see), I don't see a CUSA (without USM/ECU and possibly Tulsa) having much to offer. Do you really think a conference like that is going to hold onto 6 bowl tie ins? Or have much to sell to the TV networks? I just see a lot of travel in the most likely CUSA expansion scenario.

Of course, its possible that CUSA tries to damage the Belt irrespective of a raid by the nBE/MWC by going after MTSU and/or WKU. That would not be good. But I think that the lower money per institution is going to drive opposition by many of the existing schools to avoid further dilution.

In other words, we are good for the next year. And in the most likely CUSA expansion scenario, we're probably good as well.
MT to CUSA is all but a sure thing in the next round of realignment. The question will be whether or not CUSA opts to take either of FAU or WKU. Both have attributes that would make them attractive, and both would accept in a heartbeat.

If a bid were extended today, both would (and should accept). But without USM and ECU? Or without USM, ECU, and Tulsa? Why would they? The would be opening themselves up to massive new travel costs to play with

1) Rice - 1 winning season in the last 10 years. Truly awful football and gets no coverage in their home market. They play in an old stadium that is a fifth full for conference games.

2) UTSA - Moveup. Lost to a D-III school last year. Supposedly FBS this year, but....they play 4 non-FBS teams this year. MTSU will be flying to this game.

3) UTEP - 1 winning season in the last 6 years. Have fun with the flight to El Paso.

4) Tulane - no recent winning seasons. Plays in an old facility that they never fill. Ever. The city of New Orleans just told them 'no' to their plans for an OCS. 8 hour drive or a flight.

5) UAB - A dumpster fire of a program. Old, empty, stadium. Doesn't even control their own Athletic Department. UAB is an easy drive from Murfreesboro, though.

6) FIU - Plays in a tiny stadium. 2 winning seasons - ever. MTSU will be flying to this game.

7) Marshall - Good - not great - program. Reasonably close to MTSU.

8) ODU - Has no stadium, no FBS schedule, and wont be in FBS for a few years. Another flight for MTSU

9) UNCC - Wont even be Bowl eligible till 2016 or so. Another flight.

10) La Tech - Decent program (They went to a bowl game twice in the last 10 years). No market (No Shreveport doesn't count). MTSU will likely drive this one (as commercial flights aren't really much here).

11) North Texas - 0 winning seasons in the last 6 years. New stadium. Virtually ignored in the DFW media (after the Cowboys, SMU, TCU, Baylor - just as close to parts of the metroplex as Denton), UT, OU, and Texas A&M).

Why would anyone want to leave the Belt for a conference that looks like this? A CUSA that looks like this isn't going to qualify for (much less retain) 6 bowl tie ins or any TV contract worth much.

CUSA made a huge mistake taking UTSA, Charlotte and ODU in the last round. They should have taken WKU, and MTSU. However, if CUSA gets raided, they shouldn't assume that they can just pick whomever they want from the Belt. Because the Belt is no worse than that potential CUSA, which is perhaps just one year away.
(This post was last modified: 06-19-2012 10:28 AM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
06-19-2012 10:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
b0ndsj0ns Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,056
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 1016
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #49
RE: CUSA Expansion On Hold 12-15 Months ?
Tom feel free to let me know when and where you think ECU and USM are going.
06-19-2012 10:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,351
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 633
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #50
RE: CUSA Expansion On Hold 12-15 Months ?
People are chasing something that no longer exists. Without the 4 schools that just left why would I want CUSA? I mean seriously, if you dont read message boards every day can you tell the difference? Ask anyone at work who is a fan of a Power 6 school.
06-19-2012 10:35 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #51
RE: CUSA Expansion On Hold 12-15 Months ?
(06-19-2012 10:29 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Tom feel free to let me know when and where you think ECU and USM are going.

I'm operating under the following assumptions

1) CUSA stopped expanding because they didn't wish to dilute their TV contract any more than they already have.
.
2) CUSA will likely only expand if they need additional teams due to a raid.

3) ECU and USM are the likely 'next targets' for the nBE if Uconn/Rutgers get called up to the ACC, or if the Western nBE falls apart. I don't see ECU and USM getting passed over if there is a next time. They are the only two programs that are credible in a top tier conference (other than tiny Tulsa - which is a stretch due to its' size).

4) Without ECU and USM, the CUSA is really no better than the Sun Belt and will not retain or qualify for its 6 bowl tie ins or have much of a valuable TV deal.

Of course, its possible CUSA wants to go up to 16 teams, but I'm not seeing that as really likely now. CUSA just bit off a LOT.
(This post was last modified: 06-19-2012 10:38 AM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
06-19-2012 10:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mufanatehc Offline
Hmm...
*

Posts: 6,530
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation: 169
I Root For: BSU, EHC, & MU
Location: Nashville
Post: #52
RE: CUSA Expansion On Hold 12-15 Months ?
ODU has an OCS, and is in preliminary plans to expand it.

Even if they never fill the Super Dome, you can't slight Tulane by calling it old; its nicer than anything the SB has or will ever have. + they're still working on getting their stadium done.

Charlotte is only a 6 hour drive from Nashville, don't know why you're calling that a flight.

The new CUSA still has better basketball than the SB, which would be a consideration to some programs. And even just looking at football, I see no programs worse than the worst of the SB, but a few better than the SB's best.
06-19-2012 10:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
b0ndsj0ns Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,056
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 1016
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #53
RE: CUSA Expansion On Hold 12-15 Months ?
(06-19-2012 10:36 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(06-19-2012 10:29 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Tom feel free to let me know when and where you think ECU and USM are going.

I'm operating under the following assumptions

1) CUSA stopped expanding because they didn't wish to dilute their TV contract any more than they already have.
.
2) CUSA will likely only expand if they need additional teams due to a raid.

3) ECU and USM are the likely 'next targets' for the nBE if Uconn/Rutgers get called up to the ACC, or if the Western nBE falls apart. I don't see ECU and USM getting passed over if there is a next time. They are the only two programs that are credible in a top tier conference (other than tiny Tulsa - which is a stretch due to its' size).

4) Without ECU and USM, the CUSA is really no better than the Sun Belt and will not retain or qualify for its 6 bowl tie ins or have much of a valuable TV deal.

Of course, its possible CUSA wants to go up to 16 teams, but I'm not seeing that as really likely now. CUSA just bit off a LOT.

Do you think the Big East cares about who is or isn't creditable? They care about markets and that's it. Pretty much the same thing C-USA cares about. They will keep passing ECU and USM over, probably in favor of some of the large market start ups that you guys have mocked we added. If any of those schools make 2 bowl games in a row they are ahead of ECU and USM in the Big East's minds.
(This post was last modified: 06-19-2012 10:44 AM by b0ndsj0ns.)
06-19-2012 10:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,351
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 633
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #54
RE: CUSA Expansion On Hold 12-15 Months ?
I call it a wash and as I said most casual fans would not know the difference. When Tulane plays Ole Miss and ULM plays Auburn the average fan will look at those games exactly the same.
06-19-2012 10:44 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #55
RE: CUSA Expansion On Hold 12-15 Months ?
(06-19-2012 10:39 AM)mufanatehc Wrote:  ODU has an OCS, and is in preliminary plans to expand it.

Even if they never fill the Super Dome, you can't slight Tulane by calling it old; its nicer than anything the SB has or will ever have. + they're still working on getting their stadium done.

Charlotte is only a 6 hour drive from Nashville, don't know why you're calling that a flight.

The new CUSA still has better basketball than the SB, which would be a consideration to some programs. And even just looking at football, I see no programs worse than the worst of the SB, but a few better than the SB's best.

I would offer the Georgia Dome as 'better' than the Super Dome. But they are both inappropriate venues for CUSA/Sun Belt football.

Marshall would be competitive for the Sun Belt crown, but I'm not seeing dominance here (yes, you did beat the 3rd place team in the Sun Belt last year in a Bowl - noted). Nor does La Tech (and their 2 bowl berths in the last 10 years) scare the Belt either.

Yes right now, CUSA is better. But if USM/ECU get poached next time, you're going to have a much harder time making that argument. That was my point. And that's why it was stupid for CUSA to take all those moveups. Because if realignment hits you again, you're automatic case for 'we're better than the Belt' might not be so obvious.

Right now, for non-revenue sports, MTSU can bus it to WKU, stAte, ULM, and GSU easily. For the rest of the teams they can combine Troy/USA on one trip (which they will probably bus for non-rev sports), ULL/Texas State on one trip. The only outlier is FAU. In CUSA, they're flying to Tulsa/DFW, Houston/SA, El Paso, Greenville/Norfolk, and Miami. Thats 6 plane trips versus 2. Multiplied by every single non-rev sport.

Yes, right now, any SBC team would leave for CUSA, if asked. But I wouldn't be so sure about a CUSA further raided.
(This post was last modified: 06-19-2012 11:27 AM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
06-19-2012 11:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #56
RE: CUSA Expansion On Hold 12-15 Months ?
(06-19-2012 08:11 AM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  ULL would not be agreeable to anything that would cost them more money down the road, that wouldn't make sense. Secondly, we are not talking right now, but possibly two to four years down the road. CUSA is not going to make any more moves now or next year. The only concerns for ULL is Tulane and Rice, not having two programs from Louisiana in the conference now. Both programs see what Hudspeth is capable of doing with recruiting the I-10 corridor and are scared to death to have ULL between New Orleans and Houston. Both programs have become less relevant in football every year.

UL's financial commitments will decide their future. The administration has now been put on notice that if they do not make the financial commitments to move the athletic program forward while Hudspeth is under contract, current and potential donors will be done. A new master facility plan is to be released in August and September, designating priority projects and cost. We will see what happens after that, but we are going to find out what UL's commitment will be very soon.

Therein lies the future of the Sun Belt.

Rice, Tulane, and La.Tech will reflexively vote "no" whenever Louisiana is mentioned. It will take 11 affirmative votes for the Cajuns to get in and the maximum available votes is 11. All that is required to keep the Cajuns out is one school joining them for the block.

Whenever the "new" C-USA is discussed the conversation starts with ECU and USM. The reality is that the modern C-USA would be unlikely to admit either of them. Arkansas State sits in a market very much like USM's and Louisiana sits in a market very much like ECU's. Even in the old C-USA it was a struggle for ECU to get in, first football only then later all-sports.

It is extremely unlikely that C-USA will ever contemplate adding Arkansas State, Louisiana, Western Kentucky, Troy or ULM simply due to market size without requiring the need to evaluate any other potential criteria.

If there is a working list, the Sun Belt schools likely appear on it in roughly this order: MTSU, FAU, Georgia State, USA, Texas State.

Unless C-USA diverts from its established path, we will lose no more than 4 schools (that presumes no FCS are brought into the fold, and that's not a solid presumption) and Arkansas State, Louisiana, ULM, Troy, WKU, UALR, UTA, and probably TxSt are here for the long haul and USA is probably in that mix as well.
06-19-2012 11:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #57
RE: CUSA Expansion On Hold 12-15 Months ?
(06-19-2012 11:21 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Yes right now, CUSA is better. But if USM/ECU get poached next time, you're going to have a much harder time making that argument. That was my point. And that's why it was stupid for CUSA to take all those moveups. Because if realignment hits you again, you're automatic case for 'we're better than the Belt' might not be so obvious.

Right now, for non-revenue sports, MTSU can bus it to WKU, stAte, ULM, and GSU easily. For the rest of the teams they can combine Troy/USA on one trip (which they will probably bus for non-rev sports), ULL/Texas State on one trip. The only outlier is FAU. In CUSA, they're flying to Tulsa/DFW, Houston/SA, El Paso, Greenville/Norfolk, and Miami. Thats 6 plane trips versus 2. Multiplied by every single non-rev sport.

Yes, right now, any SBC team would leave for CUSA, if asked. But I wouldn't be so sure about a CUSA further raided.

Let's just for argument sake say that the Big XII announces this fall that they are adding Louisville and BYU.

The Big East now has 17 full members and 12 for football. The Big East now has a different commissioner and likely a different viewpoint so they are harder to read. Their basic options are:
1. Do nothing. 17 is terrible for scheduling though.
2. Add a non-football school. (18/12)
3. Add a full member and a football only. (18/14)

They likely have two colliding schools of thought.

One would have a western preference for option 3. There are currently five "natural" west division schools in football (Boise, SDSU, SMU, Houston, Memphis). That means Temple has to play west in the current alignment. The western school of thought would probably produce Tulsa as the full member and would try Air Force again as the western football only. Tulsa is in a mid-sized market, it's private, it helps travel for the western fringe all-sports schools, and has had some notable success. If AFA declines then you start looking at Fresno, Nevada, Colorado State, and maybe UNLV or New Mexico.

The second school of thought would be eastern in nature and may not have any particular concerns about the long-term health of the new additions. This group would likely look at Charlotte, ODU, ECU, UMass, Buffalo, FIU, and FAU.

I think the circumstances make it unlikely that ECU AND USM go anywhere. It may well be that neither go any place.

If both did, then what is left if CUSA doesn't look especially appealing except for travel considerations.

More likely CUSA ramps on up to 16 or 18 without losing anyone.
06-19-2012 11:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
b0ndsj0ns Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 27,056
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 1016
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #58
RE: CUSA Expansion On Hold 12-15 Months ?
(06-19-2012 11:29 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(06-19-2012 08:11 AM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  ULL would not be agreeable to anything that would cost them more money down the road, that wouldn't make sense. Secondly, we are not talking right now, but possibly two to four years down the road. CUSA is not going to make any more moves now or next year. The only concerns for ULL is Tulane and Rice, not having two programs from Louisiana in the conference now. Both programs see what Hudspeth is capable of doing with recruiting the I-10 corridor and are scared to death to have ULL between New Orleans and Houston. Both programs have become less relevant in football every year.

UL's financial commitments will decide their future. The administration has now been put on notice that if they do not make the financial commitments to move the athletic program forward while Hudspeth is under contract, current and potential donors will be done. A new master facility plan is to be released in August and September, designating priority projects and cost. We will see what happens after that, but we are going to find out what UL's commitment will be very soon.

Therein lies the future of the Sun Belt.

Rice, Tulane, and La.Tech will reflexively vote "no" whenever Louisiana is mentioned. It will take 11 affirmative votes for the Cajuns to get in and the maximum available votes is 11. All that is required to keep the Cajuns out is one school joining them for the block.

Whenever the "new" C-USA is discussed the conversation starts with ECU and USM. The reality is that the modern C-USA would be unlikely to admit either of them. Arkansas State sits in a market very much like USM's and Louisiana sits in a market very much like ECU's. Even in the old C-USA it was a struggle for ECU to get in, first football only then later all-sports.

It is extremely unlikely that C-USA will ever contemplate adding Arkansas State, Louisiana, Western Kentucky, Troy or ULM simply due to market size without requiring the need to evaluate any other potential criteria.

If there is a working list, the Sun Belt schools likely appear on it in roughly this order: MTSU, FAU, Georgia State, USA, Texas State.

Unless C-USA diverts from its established path, we will lose no more than 4 schools (that presumes no FCS are brought into the fold, and that's not a solid presumption) and Arkansas State, Louisiana, ULM, Troy, WKU, UALR, UTA, and probably TxSt are here for the long haul and USA is probably in that mix as well.

I disagree with the bold part. Heck we did just invite La Tech, who is basically a less successful, less supported, and just overall lesser version of ECU and USM. Marshall was added in the previous grouping, essentially a USM and ECU clone of sorts. I think Arkansas State or WKU would stand a chance if they started to go on a Marshall type of run in the late 90's/early 00's of getting an invite. I agree about ULL there are just too many automatic no votes to probably ever get them in.
06-19-2012 11:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CAJUNNATION Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,689
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 75
I Root For: Western Civilization
Location: Parts Unknown
Post: #59
RE: CUSA Expansion On Hold 12-15 Months ?
(06-19-2012 11:29 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  ....and Arkansas State, Louisiana, ULM, Troy, WKU, UALR, UTA, and probably TxSt are here for the long haul and USA is probably in that mix as well.


Texas State
Lamar
Louisiana
ULM
UALR
Arkansas State

Troy
South Alabama
WKU
Appalachain State
Georgia Southern
North Florida


...seems about where we're headed.
06-19-2012 12:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panama Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 31,351
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 633
I Root For: Georgia STATE
Location: East Atlanta Village
Post: #60
RE: CUSA Expansion On Hold 12-15 Months ?
Damn, are we out already? CAA wants us out and now this. Cant we all just get along?
06-19-2012 12:28 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.