Honestly, if I am Houston and SMU, I start answering the phone if the MWC calls. This mess keeps getting worse.

(01-20-2013 01:05 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  WTF. This busted freaking conference keeps sinking farther and farther into irrelevancy. Just become the Sunbelt and be done with it.

Since joining CUSA in 2005 they have 2 Liberty Bowl wins...4 ten win or better seasons...and a 72-34 record. (7 bowls)

and a tradition rich basketball program...all wrapped up in a nice size market. (With great academics to boot)

we will be lucky to have them.

(01-20-2013 02:38 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 02:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 02:18 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  My school is not involved with this voting but I can't imagine adding Tulsa creates enough additional revenue to give existing schools more money in the end game then they would get with 10.

Tulsa is not so much about adding revenue over 10 schools. It's about adding a CCG game when we get to 11 with Navy. Between the Tulsa market and the value of the CCG game, I suspect the Tulsa addition will be close to revenue neutral. Navy is revenue positive. So, adding both should increase revenue to each school a bit. It's certainly not going to cut revenue to any significant degree.

In my opinion dogging Tulsa and then pimping schools like UMass (that is NOT in the Boston DMA) and Charolette that hasn't even played a down of football is laughable. Don't get me wrong, both schools may develop, but there will be plenty of time to add said schools in the future if they pan out. No reason to blindly gamble on thier future prospects at this point in time.

I don't see how you can think adding Tulsa would be revenue neutral. They don't add a market comparable to Houston, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Orlando, Cincinnati, Memphis, Dallas, etc. They also have a much smaller school size than the rest of us -- which means smaller alumni base for support. They will not help the exisiting nBE sale more tickets to games, in general. Just knowing those basic facts, I don't think it's possible to see how they add or retain value to the TV contract.

What I said was wait a few years to see what UMass and Charlotte do. Charlotte is a real market (Top 20), they have good basketball, and could end up being solid in football. UMass is just starting to expand football, and yes, it does sit in the Boston market. If schools like Northeastern, Boston University, and Boston College can claim the Boston market...so can UMass. UMass may not pull all of Boston, but lets be honest, neither do the rest of us in our respective markets. In my opinion, it's all about exposure in different markets.

If more than 6-9 thousand were showing to thier football games I might take them more seriously. Right now, UMass has a lot of growing up to do at the FBS level. I'm just ruling them out for now. I'd look a them for basketball only right now. I'd keep an eye on them for future addition. But no way in hell would I add them for football now.

(01-20-2013 02:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 02:38 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 02:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 02:18 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  My school is not involved with this voting but I can't imagine adding Tulsa creates enough additional revenue to give existing schools more money in the end game then they would get with 10.

Tulsa is not so much about adding revenue over 10 schools. It's about adding a CCG game when we get to 11 with Navy. Between the Tulsa market and the value of the CCG game, I suspect the Tulsa addition will be close to revenue neutral. Navy is revenue positive. So, adding both should increase revenue to each school a bit. It's certainly not going to cut revenue to any significant degree.

In my opinion dogging Tulsa and then pimping schools like UMass (that is NOT in the Boston DMA) and Charolette that hasn't even played a down of football is laughable. Don't get me wrong, both schools may develop, but there will be plenty of time to add said schools in the future if they pan out. No reason to blindly gamble on thier future prospects at this point in time.

I don't see how you can think adding Tulsa would be revenue neutral. They don't add a market comparable to Houston, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Orlando, Cincinnati, Memphis, Dallas, etc. They also have a much smaller school size than the rest of us -- which means smaller alumni base for support. They will not help the exisiting nBE sale more tickets to games, in general. Just knowing those basic facts, I don't think it's possible to see how they add or retain value to the TV contract.

What I said was wait a few years to see what UMass and Charlotte do. Charlotte is a real market (Top 20), they have good basketball, and could end up being solid in football. UMass is just starting to expand football, and yes, it does sit in the Boston market. If schools like Northeastern, Boston University, and Boston College can claim the Boston market...so can UMass. UMass may not pull all of Boston, but lets be honest, neither do the rest of us in our respective markets. In my opinion, it's all about exposure in different markets.

If more than 6-9 thousand were showing to thier football games I might take them more seriously. Right now, UMass has a lot of growing up to do at the FBS level.

Not every add is just for football. UMass is a basketball add. It has a market. It needs to grow its football -- just like how UConn did. Just like how we are expecting Memphis and Tulane to do.

Tulsa is decent in football. It's decent in basketball. It doesn't have a large market. That's why I'm saying they are more comparable.

(01-20-2013 02:38 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Honestly, if I am Houston and SMU, I start answering the phone if the MWC calls. This mess keeps getting worse.

I'd have no problem with that. But most of what I have heard continues to indicate we intend to stick with the nBE. Of course, if we suffer some more defections, i think all bets could be off at that point.

(01-20-2013 02:38 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Honestly, if I am Houston and SMU, I start answering the phone if the MWC calls. This mess keeps getting worse.

Why? The Big East has better: 1) academics, 2) markets, 3) FB, and 4) BB. To me, those are the "Big Four" of realignment.

SMU doesn't want to play BB at SJSU or FB at Wyoming.

(01-20-2013 02:46 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 02:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 02:38 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 02:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 02:18 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  My school is not involved with this voting but I can't imagine adding Tulsa creates enough additional revenue to give existing schools more money in the end game then they would get with 10.

Tulsa is not so much about adding revenue over 10 schools. It's about adding a CCG game when we get to 11 with Navy. Between the Tulsa market and the value of the CCG game, I suspect the Tulsa addition will be close to revenue neutral. Navy is revenue positive. So, adding both should increase revenue to each school a bit. It's certainly not going to cut revenue to any significant degree.

In my opinion dogging Tulsa and then pimping schools like UMass (that is NOT in the Boston DMA) and Charolette that hasn't even played a down of football is laughable. Don't get me wrong, both schools may develop, but there will be plenty of time to add said schools in the future if they pan out. No reason to blindly gamble on thier future prospects at this point in time.

I don't see how you can think adding Tulsa would be revenue neutral. They don't add a market comparable to Houston, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Orlando, Cincinnati, Memphis, Dallas, etc. They also have a much smaller school size than the rest of us -- which means smaller alumni base for support. They will not help the exisiting nBE sale more tickets to games, in general. Just knowing those basic facts, I don't think it's possible to see how they add or retain value to the TV contract.

What I said was wait a few years to see what UMass and Charlotte do. Charlotte is a real market (Top 20), they have good basketball, and could end up being solid in football. UMass is just starting to expand football, and yes, it does sit in the Boston market. If schools like Northeastern, Boston University, and Boston College can claim the Boston market...so can UMass. UMass may not pull all of Boston, but lets be honest, neither do the rest of us in our respective markets. In my opinion, it's all about exposure in different markets.

If more than 6-9 thousand were showing to thier football games I might take them more seriously. Right now, UMass has a lot of growing up to do at the FBS level.

Not every add is just for football. UMass is a basketball add. It has a market. It needs to grow its football -- just like how UConn did. Just like how we are expecting Memphis and Tulane to do.

Tulsa is decent in football. It's decent in basketball. It doesn't have a large market. That's why I'm saying they are more comparable.

Actually, I would be fine with UMass as an Olympic sports add. Bring in thier football later when warranted.

Guessing they would if it meant still having a conference to call home. More and more I wonder if this corporation is going to dissolve and wind up its affairs within the next 5 years.

(01-20-2013 02:48 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 02:38 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Honestly, if I am Houston and SMU, I start answering the phone if the MWC calls. This mess keeps getting worse.

Why? The Big East has better: 1) academics, 2) markets, 3) FB, and 4) BB. To me, those are the "Big Four" of realignment.

SMU doesn't want to play BB at SJSU or FB at Wyoming.

This.

The Temple AD pretty much said all that needed to be said.

(01-20-2013 02:50 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Guessing they would if it meant still having a conference to call home. More and more I wonder if this corporation is going to dissolve and wind up its affairs within the next 5 years.

It won't have the same membership, but it won't be dissolved.

(01-20-2013 02:42 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 01:05 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  WTF. This busted freaking conference keeps sinking farther and farther into irrelevancy. Just become the Sunbelt and be done with it.

Since joining CUSA in 2005 they have 2 Liberty Bowl wins...4 ten win or better seasons...and a 72-34 record. (7 bowls)

and a tradition rich basketball program...all wrapped up in a nice size market. (With great academics to boot)

we will be lucky to have them.

Wait, what?

(01-20-2013 02:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 02:46 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 02:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 02:38 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 02:25 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Tulsa is not so much about adding revenue over 10 schools. It's about adding a CCG game when we get to 11 with Navy. Between the Tulsa market and the value of the CCG game, I suspect the Tulsa addition will be close to revenue neutral. Navy is revenue positive. So, adding both should increase revenue to each school a bit. It's certainly not going to cut revenue to any significant degree.

In my opinion dogging Tulsa and then pimping schools like UMass (that is NOT in the Boston DMA) and Charolette that hasn't even played a down of football is laughable. Don't get me wrong, both schools may develop, but there will be plenty of time to add said schools in the future if they pan out. No reason to blindly gamble on thier future prospects at this point in time.

I don't see how you can think adding Tulsa would be revenue neutral. They don't add a market comparable to Houston, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Orlando, Cincinnati, Memphis, Dallas, etc. They also have a much smaller school size than the rest of us -- which means smaller alumni base for support. They will not help the exisiting nBE sale more tickets to games, in general. Just knowing those basic facts, I don't think it's possible to see how they add or retain value to the TV contract.

What I said was wait a few years to see what UMass and Charlotte do. Charlotte is a real market (Top 20), they have good basketball, and could end up being solid in football. UMass is just starting to expand football, and yes, it does sit in the Boston market. If schools like Northeastern, Boston University, and Boston College can claim the Boston market...so can UMass. UMass may not pull all of Boston, but lets be honest, neither do the rest of us in our respective markets. In my opinion, it's all about exposure in different markets.

If more than 6-9 thousand were showing to thier football games I might take them more seriously. Right now, UMass has a lot of growing up to do at the FBS level.

Not every add is just for football. UMass is a basketball add. It has a market. It needs to grow its football -- just like how UConn did. Just like how we are expecting Memphis and Tulane to do.

Tulsa is decent in football. It's decent in basketball. It doesn't have a large market. That's why I'm saying they are more comparable.

Actually, I would be fine with UMass as an Olympic sports add. Bring in thier football later when warranted.

Exactly. But a UMass add for Olympic sports now and football later adds value to the TV package. Charlotte is the same way. Tulsa, while I think they are a good football add, because of the combination of their location and school size doesn't add value. That's the point I'm trying to make. It's not about do I like a school or not....it's about money and the potential future of this league. Tulsa is maxed out -- which universities with smaller enrollment have gone to be consistent Top 20 football schools? It happens...but the odds are stacked against Tulsa with what it can achieve in the long run.

(01-20-2013 02:59 PM)Bearcat_Bounce Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 02:42 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 01:05 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  WTF. This busted freaking conference keeps sinking farther and farther into irrelevancy. Just become the Sunbelt and be done with it.

Since joining CUSA in 2005 they have 2 Liberty Bowl wins...4 ten win or better seasons...and a 72-34 record. (7 bowls)

and a tradition rich basketball program...all wrapped up in a nice size market. (With great academics to boot)

we will be lucky to have them.

Wait, what?

Can you not read? Wouldn't surprise me

Heck if this conference is going expand. Add Tulsa, UMass, and Charlotte. That group gives the conference enough wiggle room when schools move out.

Guys I already started a Times Square Thread.

Thats the only confirmation I need.

Seriously? We go from talking about adding the best of the rest to adding the worst? UMass and Charlotte are solid top 100 rpi Bball teams, but they suck at football. Trust me...The ACC, B1g, Big12 are not looking at taking them and they will be available at any time. Tulsa is the current CUSA champion and the MWC would love to have them.

From the move to 12 in the MWC to the comments by big12 commish, I think the networks want a ccg. So it's hard to go too wrong by taking another conferences champion.

I would certainly be fine with adding them for all sports less football and see if they can grow into a decent FBS football school, but the last thing this conference needs at this point is those two as football playing members.

Add Tulsa and stay at 12. We shouldn't even return the phone calls of any other schools.

The only way I'd even consider going to 14 is if Army wanted in as #13. I would take a look at that, but even that is not a sure thing.

(01-20-2013 02:59 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 02:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 02:46 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 02:43 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 02:38 PM)ScreamShatter Wrote:  I don't see how you can think adding Tulsa would be revenue neutral. They don't add a market comparable to Houston, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Orlando, Cincinnati, Memphis, Dallas, etc. They also have a much smaller school size than the rest of us -- which means smaller alumni base for support. They will not help the exisiting nBE sale more tickets to games, in general. Just knowing those basic facts, I don't think it's possible to see how they add or retain value to the TV contract.

What I said was wait a few years to see what UMass and Charlotte do. Charlotte is a real market (Top 20), they have good basketball, and could end up being solid in football. UMass is just starting to expand football, and yes, it does sit in the Boston market. If schools like Northeastern, Boston University, and Boston College can claim the Boston market...so can UMass. UMass may not pull all of Boston, but lets be honest, neither do the rest of us in our respective markets. In my opinion, it's all about exposure in different markets.

If more than 6-9 thousand were showing to thier football games I might take them more seriously. Right now, UMass has a lot of growing up to do at the FBS level.

Not every add is just for football. UMass is a basketball add. It has a market. It needs to grow its football -- just like how UConn did. Just like how we are expecting Memphis and Tulane to do.

Tulsa is decent in football. It's decent in basketball. It doesn't have a large market. That's why I'm saying they are more comparable.

Actually, I would be fine with UMass as an Olympic sports add. Bring in thier football later when warranted.

Exactly. But a UMass add for Olympic sports now and football later adds value to the TV package. Charlotte is the same way. Tulsa, while I think they are a good football add, because of the combination of their location and school size doesn't add value. That's the point I'm trying to make. It's not about do I like a school or not....it's about money and the potential future of this league. Tulsa is maxed out -- which universities with smaller enrollment have gone to be consistent Top 20 football schools? It happens...but the odds are stacked against Tulsa with what it can achieve in the long run.

Tulsa is about the same size as New Orleans. You are underestimating the size of the city. They bring solid sports programs. I agree---They are somewhat maxed out, though I think they can bump up thier attendance with a better marketing effort and a better confernce. I could see them at teh 25-35K mark in 5 to 10 years. Yes, due to thier small enrollment they have a ceiling--but at the worst, they will be a solid program that wont embarrass the league and adds a market the size of New Orleans. Interestingly, this year, Tulsa was the most televised school in CUSA. They are a quality add. Frankly, there is only one more quality FBS addition left east of the Texas. S Miss. After that, everythng else is totally about potential.

(01-20-2013 02:38 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Honestly, if I am Houston and SMU, I start answering the phone if the MWC calls. This mess keeps getting worse.

It's awful compared to what SMU and Houston were walking in to, but it's still better than that awful tv deal the MWC has as well as that awful university exposure out west.

(01-20-2013 02:28 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  Considering the rapid pace that teams change conferences these days, you almost have to go beyond 10 teams now or risk getting raided down to oblivion.

If the current 10 would commit to being in the league for all times, you woudn't have to, but there isn't a school in the current 10 that wouldn't leave to one of the big 5 conferences. It is what it is.

For the record, I like Tulsa and like being in a conference with them, AND I still wish there was a way to stay at 10. Just don't see any way that can happen.

To stay at 10 you would have to get a grant of rights deal and no one in their most delusional state would expect that out of UC and UCONN. I expect any addition will bring about a revenue neutral deal from TV partners as I imagine that TV talks include potential members and their numbers impact.