Historically, I have to plead ignorance with this. E.g...please explain why it matters relative to sports why a school like Tulsa feels a 'need' to be associated with schools such as Tulane and SMU. What is the relevance? I can come with Vandy in the SEC, Stanford in the PAC, etc... commuter schools, AAUs...I see these comparisons being made time and again in various postings.

When I hear these arguments being made I have to scratch my head and finally ask, how does this relate to realignment and if there was some benefit, why didn't it happen sooner? BYU fits where? ND fits where? In the end they will fit somewhere..... you can book that.

Birmingham, Houston, Charlotte, Louisville, Cincinnati, Tampa, Chicago, Memphis, Orlando, Dallas, El Paso, New Orleans...

there was a certain part of CUSA that was the metro conference. Obviously some of these schools have moved on from us, but the CUSA schools in general are City Schools that all deal with similar issues with land development. The SEC is based on criminal activity, etc etc each conference has a uniting factor that makes each school connect to each other.

It's pure nonsense in regards to sports.

What academic or financial benefit has USM, or any C-USA school, received for being in the same conference as UAB, Tulane, Rice or Tulsa? Maybe there are some, I don't know, but they are probably minimal at best.

I'm not saying it's not important to ADs and presidents, but other than individuals schmoozing with prestigious individuals, I don't see the point.

I think it matters. I'm sure Rice would like the schools they have to compete against to have the same admission standards they do.

(02-17-2013 03:33 AM)Saint Greg Wrote:  I think it matters. I'm sure Rice would like the schools they have to compete against to have the same admission standards they do.

That actually makes sense, but at the same time why don't rice, Tulane, Tulsa, etc etc form an "elitist" conference? I think it is because they need the USMs, East Carolinas, Central Floridas and so on because they need to be associated with top notch athletic programs as well. Nobody watches the Ivy League and everybody watches the SEC, there is a reason for that.

I think that they can't form their own conf because unlike the northeast, elite schools in the south and west are spread out over a huge geographical area. The tiny revenue they would generate would be dwarfed by their expenses. Unlike the Ivy and Patriot leagues.

Saying 'we value AAU membership' pisses off fewer people than saying 'we only accept giant state flagships with very deep pockets or super-elite private institutions'.

(02-17-2013 03:16 AM)Big Dub Wrote:  It's pure nonsense in regards to sports.

What academic or financial benefit has USM, or any C-USA school, received for being in the same conference as UAB, Tulane, Rice or Tulsa? Maybe there are some, I don't know, but they are probably minimal at best.

I'm not saying it's not important to ADs and presidents, but other than individuals schmoozing with prestigious individuals, I don't see the point.

FFS, you guys are myopic!! This post seemed to start with an honest question but I can see is quickly going to devolve into a block-headed well of ignorance. The answer to your question is, "Ask your ADs and, importantly, your school's President/Chancellor, too."

Start with the two main reasons athletics exists at all: First, attracting the highest quality students. Rice wants to be playing Tulane less due to them recruiting similar athletes and more - much, much more - due to them targeting similar students. Yes, Tulane candidates are likely to already be aware of Rice candidates and vice-versa, but think in terms of UAB wanting to share a conference with urban, global research universities.

Second, keeping the retention and graduation rates of those students as high as possible by enhancing their campus experience...which not only is critical to the mission of all universities but also creates well-educated (i.e., likely successful) alums with an affinity for their school. Similar schools are going to have similar classes of fans, alumni, and students which increases the odds of enjoyable experiences/rivalries both ways.

Most of all, though, conference schools actually DO share resources and mutually work to elevate the quality of academics, research, profiles (as regards publishing papers, peer reveiws, etc.), etc. In fact, the schools spend much more time on those things in a given academic year - meaning working with each other - than they do competing in athletics. The collective research dollars secured by a conference can be almost as important as that of individual schools.

Oh yeah, there's also the matter of similar schools having similar standards that their prospective student-athletes have to meet for admittance. There's a good reason entire conferences either allow or don't allow partial qualifiers...it kind of makes sense to have a level playing field.

(02-17-2013 02:13 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  Historically, I have to plead ignorance with this. E.g...please explain why it matters relative to sports why a school like Tulsa feels a 'need' to be associated with schools such as Tulane and SMU. What is the relevance? I can come with Vandy in the SEC, Stanford in the PAC, etc... commuter schools, AAUs...I see these comparisons being made time and again in various postings.

When I hear these arguments being made I have to scratch my head and finally ask, how does this relate to realignment and if there was some benefit, why didn't it happen sooner? BYU fits where? ND fits where? In the end they will fit somewhere..... you can book that.

It goes beyond the colleges, I think.

I think Tulsa's a bit insecure about not being Dallas, OK City, Houston, or New Orleans.

In fairness to them, the OK City people wouldn't talk so much smack about them if they weren't rivals. It brings OK City down to Tulsa's level, which is apparently where they belong.

(02-17-2013 07:18 AM)blazr Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 03:16 AM)Big Dub Wrote:  It's pure nonsense in regards to sports.

What academic or financial benefit has USM, or any C-USA school, received for being in the same conference as UAB, Tulane, Rice or Tulsa? Maybe there are some, I don't know, but they are probably minimal at best.

I'm not saying it's not important to ADs and presidents, but other than individuals schmoozing with prestigious individuals, I don't see the point.

FFS, you guys are myopic!! This post seemed to start with an honest question but I can see is quickly going to devolve into a block-headed well of ignorance. The answer to your question is, "Ask your ADs and, importantly, your school's President/Chancellor, too."

Start with the two main reasons athletics exists at all: First, attracting the highest quality students. Rice wants to be playing Tulane less due to them recruiting similar athletes and more - much, much more - due to them targeting similar students. Yes, Tulane candidates are likely to already be aware of Rice candidates and vice-versa, but think in terms of UAB wanting to share a conference with urban, global research universities.

Second, keeping the retention and graduation rates of those students as high as possible by enhancing their campus experience...which not only is critical to the mission of all universities but also creates well-educated (i.e., likely successful) alums with an affinity for their school. Similar schools are going to have similar classes of fans, alumni, and students which increases the odds of enjoyable experiences/rivalries both ways.

Most of all, though, conference schools actually DO share resources and mutually work to elevate the quality of academics, research, profiles (as regards publishing papers, peer reveiws, etc.), etc. In fact, the schools spend much more time on those things in a given academic year - meaning working with each other - than they do competing in athletics. The collective research dollars secured by a conference can be almost as important as that of individual schools.

Oh yeah, there's also the matter of similar schools having similar standards that their prospective student-athletes have to meet for admittance. There's a good reason entire conferences either allow or don't allow partial qualifiers...it kind of makes sense to have a level playing field.

I tend to agree with this. Having people at Rice, UAB, etc. think about your school more than they otherwise would is a good thing.

Most conferences have variations in mission and standards that are pretty significant. Compare KSU and UT-Austin, or Stanford and ASU... or Vandy and every other school in the SEC. It's not necessarily a horrible thing.

I'm sure there are several factors that go into it. Saint Greg made a good point in terms of admission standards; I'm sure the private schools, with their own specific needs and circumstances, like knowing that several of the schools they are competing with face the same issues they do. I'm guessing any older Rice fans would say it's easier to face Tulane, Tulsa, etc. on the field and in recruiting than it was in the old SWC days when they faced Texas.

Budget-wise, we're also all in the same general area (which goes for all of the schools, public and private), again leveling the playing field. Again, see the Rice-Texas analogy.

I'm sure recruiting is an issue as well, and not just athletic recruiting. Southern Miss gets a lot of students from the southeast, so having visibility there, through athletics, helps bring in students from all walks of life. I'm sure the same plays out with other schools as well. I've heard some Tulane people say they're happy about the Big East move for this reason; a large number of their alums, as well as their potential student base, is in the northeast. The move to the Big East put them in that area.

(02-17-2013 05:34 AM)Billy Free Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 03:33 AM)Saint Greg Wrote:  I think it matters. I'm sure Rice would like the schools they have to compete against to have the same admission standards they do.

That actually makes sense, but at the same time why don't rice, Tulane, Tulsa, etc etc form an "elitist" conference? I think it is because they need the USMs, East Carolinas, Central Floridas and so on because they need to be associated with top notch athletic programs as well. Nobody watches the Ivy League and everybody watches the SEC, there is a reason for that.

Why would we need an "elitist" conference when we more than hold our own in athletic competition against the state schools in C-USA?

What’s the deal?? Seems like some of you USM guys have a personal vendetta out against Tulsa… What did we ever do to you guys? There’s one of these bash Tulsa threads started about once each week.

We’ve had someone say that Tulsa isn’t really that good of a school, our academics aren’t on par with some of the state schools here… really?, that Tulsa has some sort of inferiority complex… uh ok? And that we aren’t all that great of a program… hmmmm… There are plenty of valid arguments to combat each of those accusations.

Look, I have lots of respect for you USM guys and all our current members, but why do you guys keep throwing us under the bus? We get enough of that from our old pal Tallgrass…. With “friends” like him we don’t need enemies.

Our "peers" are our peers across the board. These aren't just areas we compete for athletic recruits, but our student body at large. It's perception for the administration and school as a whole. Tulsa strives to be on a level with those schools overall and competing with them athletically is a piece of it.

(02-17-2013 10:21 AM)goldenhurricane2 Wrote:  What’s the deal?? Seems like some of you USM guys have a personal vendetta out against Tulsa… What did we ever do to you guys? There’s one of these bash Tulsa threads started about once each week.

We’ve had someone say that Tulsa isn’t really that good of a school, our academics aren’t on par with some of the state schools here… really?, that Tulsa has some sort of inferiority complex… uh ok? And that we aren’t all that great of a program… hmmmm… There are plenty of valid arguments to combat each of those accusations.

Look, I have lots of respect for you USM guys and all our current members, but why do you guys keep throwing us under the bus? We get enough of that from our old pal Tallgrass…. With “friends” like him we don’t need enemies.

I started this thread to gain honest information like that contained in Blazr's post. In no way was this an attempt to throw Tulsa headfirst into a box fan. Tulsa was used as just one example...that's it.

(02-17-2013 03:33 AM)Saint Greg Wrote:  I think it matters. I'm sure Rice would like the schools they have to compete against to have the same admission standards they do.

This. Right now CUSA varies greatly in their admission standards for athletes.

(02-17-2013 11:23 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 03:33 AM)Saint Greg Wrote:  I think it matters. I'm sure Rice would like the schools they have to compete against to have the same admission standards they do.

This. Right now CUSA varies greatly in their admission standards for athletes.

I think we should look into changing that if it makes a difference. USM has pretty clear admissions guidelines for non-athletes that are automatically waived for NCAA qualifiers. We probably can't hold our athletes to Rice's admissions standards, but ideally we should at least hold them to our own. The problem is that, while this concession seems reasonable, we would be making it for a conference that hasn't given us fair treatment in the past, e.g. the "no USM" clause in the Liberty Bowel agreement. What needs to happen is for a variety of changes to happen as part of a packaged reform deal.

(02-17-2013 01:12 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 11:23 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 03:33 AM)Saint Greg Wrote:  I think it matters. I'm sure Rice would like the schools they have to compete against to have the same admission standards they do.

This. Right now CUSA varies greatly in their admission standards for athletes.

I think we should look into changing that if it makes a difference. USM has pretty clear admissions guidelines for non-athletes that are automatically waived for NCAA qualifiers. We probably can't hold our athletes to Rice's admissions standards, but ideally we should at least hold them to our own. The problem is that, while this concession seems reasonable, we would be making it for a conference that hasn't given us fair treatment in the past, e.g. the "no USM" clause in the Liberty Bowel agreement. What needs to happen is for a variety of changes to happen as part of a packaged reform deal.

It's not different enough to severely unbalance a conference unless schools are allowed to take Prop 48/Partials. In that case you will inevitably have schools that take them and schools that don't...even in Cartel conferences. CUSA was smart to ban Prop 48s and MWC was just as smart in following suit. Rice and Tulane, I'm sure, would never allow Prop 48s (maybe not partials...not sure) and that would put them at a severe disadvantage to a school like Marshall who leveraged that rule to huge advantage in pre-CUSA days.

Now UAB's on-field competitiveness has been hampered since 2007 because our Administration had to raise standards for athletes to overcome APR troubles in football and basketball, but the previous football coach not only left our APR in shambles but he left behind 44 scholarship players. So what percentage of our struggles were due to higher academic standards than other CUSA schools vs. just trying to get back to 100+ (counting walkons) from '07 to '10 is hard to say.

Well CUSA was basically a collection of stepchildren. Each of us were outcasts from the bigger schools in our own states but each had also had tastes of greatness in one sport or another. We also played each other regularly OOC or as independents till we joined CUSA and made the match ups count as conference games.

Tulsa needs to associate with SMU and Tulane so that the combined three have even an outside chance of competing with Rice.