Composed by Chuck Landon of "The Herald Dispatch." I didn't see this posted elsewhere but if it's in another thread, feel free to delete/merge.

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/sports/ma...a-positive

From the article:

"C-USA doesn't need an additional two members.

There are two reasons for that opinion.

No. 1: The five remaining C-USA members, who have stayed the course while the seven others bolted for the boringly named American Athletic Conference, would be insane to agree to slicing another two pieces out of the league's revenue pie.

No. 2: There aren't two more schools worthy of invitations. Sure, I know Old Dominion keeps pounding the drum for nearby James Madison, but that's nothing more than a rim-shot. The Dukes simply don't bring the necessary qualifications."

Agreed and NO on JMU.

Anything beyond 14 is too much.

So I guess we got in just in time?

(05-28-2013 09:17 AM)monarchman Wrote:  Anything beyond 14 is too much.

I agree. No need for any more at this time.

(05-28-2013 09:05 AM)VBR_Productions Wrote:  Composed by Chuck Landon of "The Herald Dispatch." I didn't see this posted elsewhere but if it's in another thread, feel free to delete/merge.

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/sports/ma...a-positive

From the article:

"C-USA doesn't need an additional two members.

There are two reasons for that opinion.

No. 1: The five remaining C-USA members, who have stayed the course while the seven others bolted for the boringly named American Athletic Conference, would be insane to agree to slicing another two pieces out of the league's revenue pie.

No. 2: There aren't two more schools worthy of invitations. Sure, I know Old Dominion keeps pounding the drum for nearby James Madison, but that's nothing more than a rim-shot. The Dukes simply don't bring the necessary qualifications."

His #1 makes perfect sense.

His #2 is silly. There are several schools that are more "worthy" than some who are already in CUSA depending on the criteria you use.

(That last part about criteria is important to read carefully to avoid my next comments being seen as a slam on one or more of the schools I mention...which they are not. This is a slam on the concept of "worthiness" as espoused by the writer. Not on the schools which were plenty worthy in one or more critical criteria at the time they were selected)

Is JMU more "worthy" than Charlotte if the criteria is number of football games played?

Are ULL and ASU more "worthy" than WKU if the criteria is FBS conference championships and bowl wins. More "worthy" than FIU if attendance is the criteria?

Georgia State is more "worthy" than LaTech if you are talking about market size.

USA is more "worthy" than UNT if it is baseball.

Revenue splitting is a valid reason for CUSA not to expand. The other is absurd.

(05-28-2013 10:33 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  His #1 makes perfect sense.
His #2 is silly. There are several schools that are more "worthy" than some who are already in CUSA depending on the criteria you use.
(That last part about criteria is important to read carefully to avoid my next comments being seen as a slam on one or more of the schools I mention...which they are not. This is a slam on the concept of "worthiness" as espoused by the writer. Not on the schools which were plenty worthy in one or more critical criteria at the time they were selected)
Is JMU more "worthy" than Charlotte if the criteria is number of football games played?
Are ULL and ASU more "worthy" than WKU if the criteria is FBS conference championships and bowl wins. More "worthy" than FIU if attendance is the criteria?
Georgia State is more "worthy" than LaTech if you are talking about market size.
USA is more "worthy" than UNT if it is baseball.
Revenue splitting is a valid reason for CUSA not to expand. The other is absurd.

Cherry-pick your categories much?

Revenue splitting actually works in CUSA's favor by going to 16 if you add two quality teams especially in football. By staying at 14 and hoping every doesn't tank they could be costing themselves money. It's all in the math.

The article also mentions 6 bowl commitments for CUSA...how good is that when you might not be able to fill all of them on a regular basis. 4 of the 5 bowl teams from last year...won't be around in 2014. CUSA needs to take a good long look and make sure they aren't screwing the pooch by staying at 14 and touting their "markets".

Also...this article came from another Eastern team. Haven't heard from any Western teams yet...I wonder how UAB feels about it?

(05-28-2013 10:40 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 10:33 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  His #1 makes perfect sense.
His #2 is silly. There are several schools that are more "worthy" than some who are already in CUSA depending on the criteria you use.
(That last part about criteria is important to read carefully to avoid my next comments being seen as a slam on one or more of the schools I mention...which they are not. This is a slam on the concept of "worthiness" as espoused by the writer. Not on the schools which were plenty worthy in one or more critical criteria at the time they were selected)
Is JMU more "worthy" than Charlotte if the criteria is number of football games played?
Are ULL and ASU more "worthy" than WKU if the criteria is FBS conference championships and bowl wins. More "worthy" than FIU if attendance is the criteria?
Georgia State is more "worthy" than LaTech if you are talking about market size.
USA is more "worthy" than UNT if it is baseball.
Revenue splitting is a valid reason for CUSA not to expand. The other is absurd.

Cherry-pick your categories much?

Sigh. Of course I did. Because I was trying to point out the absurdity of the "worthiness" argument.

I even put an explanation of what I was doing into the post so it would be clear. I guess there is nothing you can do to penetrate the message board mind.

(05-28-2013 10:56 AM)cajunbane Wrote:  Revenue splitting actually works in CUSA's favor by going to 16 if you add two quality teams especially in football. By staying at 14 and hoping every doesn't tank they could be costing themselves money. It's all in the math.

To make that math work I'm sure you have to put a lot of positive assumptions on those programs performance going forward. Obviously, if they perform at the league average, then there would be less benefit in adding additional programs.

(05-28-2013 11:05 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 10:56 AM)cajunbane Wrote:  Revenue splitting actually works in CUSA's favor by going to 16 if you add two quality teams especially in football. By staying at 14 and hoping every doesn't tank they could be costing themselves money. It's all in the math.

To make that math work I'm sure you have to put a lot of positive assumptions on those programs performance going forward. Obviously, if they perform at the league average, then there would be less benefit in adding additional programs.

You can make a case for absolutely anything in conference realignment. Its all a crap shoot.

As much as I don't want USA in the conference, their stock is quickly rising.

(05-28-2013 11:04 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 10:40 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 10:33 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  His #1 makes perfect sense.
His #2 is silly. There are several schools that are more "worthy" than some who are already in CUSA depending on the criteria you use.
(That last part about criteria is important to read carefully to avoid my next comments being seen as a slam on one or more of the schools I mention...which they are not. This is a slam on the concept of "worthiness" as espoused by the writer. Not on the schools which were plenty worthy in one or more critical criteria at the time they were selected)
Is JMU more "worthy" than Charlotte if the criteria is number of football games played?
Are ULL and ASU more "worthy" than WKU if the criteria is FBS conference championships and bowl wins. More "worthy" than FIU if attendance is the criteria?
Georgia State is more "worthy" than LaTech if you are talking about market size.
USA is more "worthy" than UNT if it is baseball.
Revenue splitting is a valid reason for CUSA not to expand. The other is absurd.

Cherry-pick your categories much?

Sigh. Of course I did. Because I was trying to point out the absurdity of the "worthiness" argument.

I even put an explanation of what I was doing into the post so it would be clear. I guess there is nothing you can do to penetrate the message board mind.

It appears you are making the assumption "worthiness" is a single category attribute. I believe the author, and CUSA, are looking across a multitude of categories leading to the conclusion no other schools will be invited at this time.

(05-28-2013 09:05 AM)VBR_Productions Wrote:  Composed by Chuck Landon

There are a lot of Marshall fans that refuse to read Landon, including me. He is a Marshall grad but most times he would rather take a shot at Marshall than give them a compliment. Esp. if it comes to football, he was against the hiring of DOC and I think Holliday has thrown him out of Joan C Edwards Stadium a few times. He complained more than once during spring practice that the media couldn't set in the press box. Not to mention it was for their safety because of the new construction going on up there.

(05-28-2013 11:16 AM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 11:04 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 10:40 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 10:33 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  His #1 makes perfect sense.
His #2 is silly. There are several schools that are more "worthy" than some who are already in CUSA depending on the criteria you use.
(That last part about criteria is important to read carefully to avoid my next comments being seen as a slam on one or more of the schools I mention...which they are not. This is a slam on the concept of "worthiness" as espoused by the writer. Not on the schools which were plenty worthy in one or more critical criteria at the time they were selected)
Is JMU more "worthy" than Charlotte if the criteria is number of football games played?
Are ULL and ASU more "worthy" than WKU if the criteria is FBS conference championships and bowl wins. More "worthy" than FIU if attendance is the criteria?
Georgia State is more "worthy" than LaTech if you are talking about market size.
USA is more "worthy" than UNT if it is baseball.
Revenue splitting is a valid reason for CUSA not to expand. The other is absurd.

Cherry-pick your categories much?

Sigh. Of course I did. Because I was trying to point out the absurdity of the "worthiness" argument.
I even put an explanation of what I was doing into the post so it would be clear. I guess there is nothing you can do to penetrate the message board mind.

It appears you are making the assumption "worthiness" is a single category attribute. I believe the author, and CUSA, are looking across a multitude of categories leading to the conclusion no other schools will be invited at this time.

Exactly. One can try to qualify their comment all they want, however, it is very clear what the point you are trying to make is. At this level, all the programs have warts, it's whose got the fewest or whose are easier to live with that matters.

South Alabama should have been invited before a few of the others, but I understand the proximity to USM is probably too much to overcome.

(05-28-2013 10:33 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 09:05 AM)VBR_Productions Wrote:  Composed by Chuck Landon of "The Herald Dispatch." I didn't see this posted elsewhere but if it's in another thread, feel free to delete/merge.

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/sports/ma...a-positive

From the article:

"C-USA doesn't need an additional two members.

There are two reasons for that opinion.

No. 1: The five remaining C-USA members, who have stayed the course while the seven others bolted for the boringly named American Athletic Conference, would be insane to agree to slicing another two pieces out of the league's revenue pie.

No. 2: There aren't two more schools worthy of invitations. Sure, I know Old Dominion keeps pounding the drum for nearby James Madison, but that's nothing more than a rim-shot. The Dukes simply don't bring the necessary qualifications."

His #1 makes perfect sense.

His #2 is silly. There are several schools that are more "worthy" than some who are already in CUSA depending on the criteria you use.

(That last part about criteria is important to read carefully to avoid my next comments being seen as a slam on one or more of the schools I mention...which they are not. This is a slam on the concept of "worthiness" as espoused by the writer. Not on the schools which were plenty worthy in one or more critical criteria at the time they were selected)

Is JMU more "worthy" than Charlotte if the criteria is number of football games played?

Are ULL and ASU more "worthy" than WKU if the criteria is FBS conference championships and bowl wins. More "worthy" than FIU if attendance is the criteria?

Georgia State is more "worthy" than LaTech if you are talking about market size.

USA is more "worthy" than UNT if it is baseball.

Revenue splitting is a valid reason for CUSA not to expand. The other is absurd.

still pimpin' away. You always seem to bash CUSA then you get on your knees and beg them to invite Arkansas State. Jealousy is a ***** ain't it?

(05-28-2013 11:16 AM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 11:04 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 10:40 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(05-28-2013 10:33 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  His #1 makes perfect sense.
His #2 is silly. There are several schools that are more "worthy" than some who are already in CUSA depending on the criteria you use.
(That last part about criteria is important to read carefully to avoid my next comments being seen as a slam on one or more of the schools I mention...which they are not. This is a slam on the concept of "worthiness" as espoused by the writer. Not on the schools which were plenty worthy in one or more critical criteria at the time they were selected)
Is JMU more "worthy" than Charlotte if the criteria is number of football games played?
Are ULL and ASU more "worthy" than WKU if the criteria is FBS conference championships and bowl wins. More "worthy" than FIU if attendance is the criteria?
Georgia State is more "worthy" than LaTech if you are talking about market size.
USA is more "worthy" than UNT if it is baseball.
Revenue splitting is a valid reason for CUSA not to expand. The other is absurd.

Cherry-pick your categories much?

Sigh. Of course I did. Because I was trying to point out the absurdity of the "worthiness" argument.

I even put an explanation of what I was doing into the post so it would be clear. I guess there is nothing you can do to penetrate the message board mind.

It appears you are making the assumption "worthiness" is a single category attribute. I believe the author, and CUSA, are looking across a multitude of categories leading to the conclusion no other schools will be invited at this time.

Either way, it is absurd.

If the network popped in and said "we need Atlanta...NOW". Then Georgia State would be damn "worthy" all of a sudden.

At some point LaTech was "unworthy" because it had no market but became "worthy" when CUSA decided they needed a better football pick at that moment.

This has nothing to do with "worthiness" of particular schools. It entirely has to do with what CUSA needs or doesn't need at a particular moment in the realignment process.

And whether they think they can make more money from doing it.

I merely point out that #1 has you covered. #2 is bogus.

I guess we got invited when CUSA decided they needed a school that was the total package.