(06-28-2014 09:58 AM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(06-27-2014 01:25 PM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 03:10 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I have the utmost respect for FIU but this statement is simply not true. The additions may pay possibly pay off in the future but that is not a given. CUSA without FIU, UTSA, FAU, UNCC, La Tech, and UNT would have been no weaker than it is right now.

They made additions based on the popular thing at the moment, markets. The reality is that CUSA should have added ULL, ASU, and no more until other programs developed more. But because they didn't you can't really claim CUSA is better than the SBC on the field.

If you read my post more closely you see that my point was to show that C-USA realigned step-by-step not as a bunch as you appear to suggest when you list FIU, UTSA, FAU, UNCC, La Tech, and UNT together (you left off ODU, MTSU and WKU).

At any point along that 18 month period, C-USA could have added ASU and/or UL-L; they chose not to. There are many reasons for why those schools listed were chosen, not least of which are for their locations (recruiting, travel logitics, etc.), markets, potential, as well as their past performances. FIU and UNT were chosen first, beyond those two, which programs would now be skipped over for an ASU or ULL (remembering that due diligence has already been performed)?

What you are ignoring is that the catalyst for realignment changed, and the fact that the administrations of these schools were under tremendous pressure to just do something, anything to give the appearance of not being left behind. Had CUSA known where things were going there is a very good chance that they would have gone a different direction, for the same reason that other schools and conferences did not follow through with some moves.

It turned out to be a very good thing for the SBC, as far as football, that it was at the bottom of the food chain before everything changed.

Yes CUSA was and is a better conference by any measure, but the moves they made assured that the SBC will be as good and probably better in football, and that is a game changer, and will have a tremendous impact on how the conferences compare in the future.

You can make the same future comparison between Texas A&M and Texas.

(06-26-2014 03:11 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 03:09 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 02:57 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  I think CUSA fans just fail to admit it was a huge mistake to expand and they will pay for it forever. It's going to really sting when schools like UTSA move up the AAC before Marshall.

No.

laugh now but UTSA is the gem of call up programs.

Did the troy fg kicker ever get his helmet fixed?

(06-26-2014 07:39 PM)ECUgradstudent Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 12:50 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 03:58 PM)westwolf Wrote:  Why don't these conferences merge? Few fans know which schools are in which conference. MWC and MAC enjoy geographic distinction, and AAC generates a lot of puff publicity thanks to Aresco, but Cusa and SB blur.

This really is a big problem for CUSA/SBC. Before CUSA had a huge tradition advantage on the SBC making CUSA a clear step up. They say that tradition never graduates. In this case the tradition did graduate to the AAC. CUSA reloaded with SBC schools and 4 recent upgrades (WKU, UTSA, Charlotte, ODU). I know WKU has been at the top level for 5 years or so but is still fairly recent.

Some of the FCS call ups by the SBC further compound the identity problem because schools like Appalachian State and Georgia Southern have recognized names in college football while CUSA additions in many cases don't. What was CUSA thinking by adding Charlotte over Appalachian State? That in particular made no sense by CUSA to bring in a school with a 15,000 seat stadium that had never played a down of football before.

Considering the MAC can't actually get 15k fans, should they move down to FBS as a conference?

MAC schools do 20,000 in the stands when winning.

When not winning.....it can vary from 15,000 at some of the more popular football schools to 7,500 at the less popular.

(06-25-2014 11:05 AM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  Yeah, there's definitely some revisionist history going on. The only merger that failed was the CUSA/MWC. If (big IF) memory serves, the merger fell through after SMU and Memphis left CUSA (no correlation, just timeline related). The C7 bolted after Louisville/Rutgers announced and Tulane and ECU (football only?) were added. Tulsa made their decision after all the moving parts were slowing down.

The merger was still in negotiation with SMU and Memphis gone; it stopped when C-USA withdrew from the talks, going for the 6 team expansion instead. Then, the MWC then chose to expand as well.

C-USA added Charlotte, FIU, Tech, UTSA, UNT and ODU at about the same time. Later it added FAU, MTSU (to replace ECU and Tulane) and then a little later WKU (to replace Tulsa).

(06-28-2014 01:22 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 07:39 PM)ECUgradstudent Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 12:50 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 03:58 PM)westwolf Wrote:  Why don't these conferences merge? Few fans know which schools are in which conference. MWC and MAC enjoy geographic distinction, and AAC generates a lot of puff publicity thanks to Aresco, but Cusa and SB blur.

This really is a big problem for CUSA/SBC. Before CUSA had a huge tradition advantage on the SBC making CUSA a clear step up. They say that tradition never graduates. In this case the tradition did graduate to the AAC. CUSA reloaded with SBC schools and 4 recent upgrades (WKU, UTSA, Charlotte, ODU). I know WKU has been at the top level for 5 years or so but is still fairly recent.

Some of the FCS call ups by the SBC further compound the identity problem because schools like Appalachian State and Georgia Southern have recognized names in college football while CUSA additions in many cases don't. What was CUSA thinking by adding Charlotte over Appalachian State? That in particular made no sense by CUSA to bring in a school with a 15,000 seat stadium that had never played a down of football before.

Considering the MAC can't actually get 15k fans, should they move down to FBS as a conference?

MAC schools do 20,000 in the stands when winning.

When not winning.....it can vary from 15,000 at some of the more popular football schools to 7,500 at the less popular.

That's is atrocious. AAC basketball teams gets that many.

(06-28-2014 01:59 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 01:22 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 07:39 PM)ECUgradstudent Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 12:50 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 03:58 PM)westwolf Wrote:  Why don't these conferences merge? Few fans know which schools are in which conference. MWC and MAC enjoy geographic distinction, and AAC generates a lot of puff publicity thanks to Aresco, but Cusa and SB blur.

This really is a big problem for CUSA/SBC. Before CUSA had a huge tradition advantage on the SBC making CUSA a clear step up. They say that tradition never graduates. In this case the tradition did graduate to the AAC. CUSA reloaded with SBC schools and 4 recent upgrades (WKU, UTSA, Charlotte, ODU). I know WKU has been at the top level for 5 years or so but is still fairly recent.

Some of the FCS call ups by the SBC further compound the identity problem because schools like Appalachian State and Georgia Southern have recognized names in college football while CUSA additions in many cases don't. What was CUSA thinking by adding Charlotte over Appalachian State? That in particular made no sense by CUSA to bring in a school with a 15,000 seat stadium that had never played a down of football before.

Considering the MAC can't actually get 15k fans, should they move down to FBS as a conference?

MAC schools do 20,000 in the stands when winning.

When not winning.....it can vary from 15,000 at some of the more popular football schools to 7,500 at the less popular.

That's is atrocious. AAC basketball teams gets that many.

Many MAC schools are located in super tiny towns with few alumni within a 50 mile radius.

It is what it is. I do see some potential for a few schools like Kent State and Buffalo if they can pump a ton of alumni out to possibly handle 40,000 seaters someday.

The MAC West is better in football but the MAC East has more crowd potential in most cases, BGSU excepted.

(06-28-2014 02:11 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 01:59 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 01:22 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 07:39 PM)ECUgradstudent Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 12:50 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  This really is a big problem for CUSA/SBC. Before CUSA had a huge tradition advantage on the SBC making CUSA a clear step up. They say that tradition never graduates. In this case the tradition did graduate to the AAC. CUSA reloaded with SBC schools and 4 recent upgrades (WKU, UTSA, Charlotte, ODU). I know WKU has been at the top level for 5 years or so but is still fairly recent.

Some of the FCS call ups by the SBC further compound the identity problem because schools like Appalachian State and Georgia Southern have recognized names in college football while CUSA additions in many cases don't. What was CUSA thinking by adding Charlotte over Appalachian State? That in particular made no sense by CUSA to bring in a school with a 15,000 seat stadium that had never played a down of football before.

Considering the MAC can't actually get 15k fans, should they move down to FBS as a conference?

MAC schools do 20,000 in the stands when winning.

When not winning.....it can vary from 15,000 at some of the more popular football schools to 7,500 at the less popular.

That's is atrocious. AAC basketball teams gets that many.

Many MAC schools are located in super tiny towns with few alumni within a 50 mile radius.

It is what it is. I do see some potential for a few schools like Kent State and Buffalo if they can pump a ton of alumni out to possibly handle 40,000 seaters someday.

The MAC West is better in football but the MAC East has more crowd potential in most cases, BGSU excepted.

Toledo, Akron, Bowling Green (part of the Toledo MSA), Buffalo, DeKalb is 64 miles from DOWNTOWN chicago, Kalamazoo is 300K+ in the metro area, Ypsilanti is 6 miles away from Ann Arbor where they seem to be able to attract fans and Kent is 14 miles from Akron

(06-28-2014 02:29 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 02:11 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 01:59 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 01:22 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 07:39 PM)ECUgradstudent Wrote:  Considering the MAC can't actually get 15k fans, should they move down to FBS as a conference?

MAC schools do 20,000 in the stands when winning.

When not winning.....it can vary from 15,000 at some of the more popular football schools to 7,500 at the less popular.

That's is atrocious. AAC basketball teams gets that many.

Many MAC schools are located in super tiny towns with few alumni within a 50 mile radius.

It is what it is. I do see some potential for a few schools like Kent State and Buffalo if they can pump a ton of alumni out to possibly handle 40,000 seaters someday.

The MAC West is better in football but the MAC East has more crowd potential in most cases, BGSU excepted.

Toledo, Akron, Bowling Green (part of the Toledo MSA), Buffalo, DeKalb is 64 miles from DOWNTOWN chicago, Kalamazoo is 300K+ in the metro area, Ypsilanti is 6 miles away from Ann Arbor where they seem to be able to attract fans and Kent is 14 miles from Akron

Points to consider:

-Toledo and WMU already get crowds of 35,000 for some games. The question is how much upside do they have to draw and I would argue not that much.

-Northern Illinois has averaged 28,000 for a season before. They have a lot of competition nestled between Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa, plus Northwestern in Evanston. Its still somewhat of a hike for NIU grads from Chicago to get out there. I feel like they should have already hit 40,000 if they are going to with all the winning they've had.

-Buffalo averaged 22,000 for a program that has only had 2 winning seasons at the FBS level. They are talking of pumping enrollment up to 40,000. They could really grow if the team became BCS buster caliber like NIU.

-Kent State has made one bowl game since 1972. It has 43,000 students including all campuses has a few sold out games a year as it is but if they became a program to be feared the potential is large.

-Miami has averaged 25,000 before on the season. They've had a bad AD in their that drove their football program into the ground with some bad hires. Alumni had a lot of pride and if the MAC develops into a conference with multiple Top 25 teams again they 100,000 alumni within an hour that will run and support it.

-Akron has a 5 year old stadium and a nice sized local market. Once drew as high as 43,000 for a game at the old Rubber Bowl.

-Ohio is expanding its stadium with 6 over capacity crowds the last two seasons. All time record crowd was set against New Mexico State in 2012. The potential to get 40,000 for a game is there with quality competition in the house.

-BG has pulled crowds of 33,000 in the past for some very good teams in there but that is because Ohio and Kent didn't have their act together on the football field. The school is not doing very well overall. From an upside perspective I just don't see that much here.

I sure hope Charlotte and ODU don't end up being another Memphis actual 2012 football attendance in a rented stadium 11,000. Charlotte can almost put that many in their on campus basketball arena.

I sure hope Charlotte and ODU don't end up another Tulane. Tulane Averaged 5,500 actual attenders per home game between 2008-2012. Some games had only 2500 actual attenders.

(06-28-2014 01:59 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 01:22 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 07:39 PM)ECUgradstudent Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 12:50 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-22-2014 03:58 PM)westwolf Wrote:  Why don't these conferences merge? Few fans know which schools are in which conference. MWC and MAC enjoy geographic distinction, and AAC generates a lot of puff publicity thanks to Aresco, but Cusa and SB blur.

This really is a big problem for CUSA/SBC. Before CUSA had a huge tradition advantage on the SBC making CUSA a clear step up. They say that tradition never graduates. In this case the tradition did graduate to the AAC. CUSA reloaded with SBC schools and 4 recent upgrades (WKU, UTSA, Charlotte, ODU). I know WKU has been at the top level for 5 years or so but is still fairly recent.

Some of the FCS call ups by the SBC further compound the identity problem because schools like Appalachian State and Georgia Southern have recognized names in college football while CUSA additions in many cases don't. What was CUSA thinking by adding Charlotte over Appalachian State? That in particular made no sense by CUSA to bring in a school with a 15,000 seat stadium that had never played a down of football before.

Considering the MAC can't actually get 15k fans, should they move down to FBS as a conference?

MAC schools do 20,000 in the stands when winning.

When not winning.....it can vary from 15,000 at some of the more popular football schools to 7,500 at the less popular.

That's is atrocious. AAC basketball teams gets that many.

May want to check that.

NCAA Basketball Attendance Figures

(06-28-2014 09:58 AM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  What you are ignoring is that the catalyst for realignment changed, and the fact that the administrations of these schools were under tremendous pressure to just do something, anything to give the appearance of not being left behind. Had CUSA known where things were going there is a very good chance that they would have gone a different direction, for the same reason that other schools and conferences did not follow through with some moves.
It turned out to be a very good thing for the SBC, as far as football, that it was at the bottom of the food chain before everything changed.

Yes CUSA was and is a better conference by any measure, but the moves they made assured that the SBC will be as good and probably better in football, and that is a game changer, and will have a tremendous impact on how the conferences compare in the future.

"The catalyst for realignment change" did not occur until the first two pairs of additions were made, UNT/FIU and UTSA/La Tech, individually. The large conflagration occurred when the C7 left the Big East, that's when ODU, UNCC, FAU and MTSU were all added; basically at the same time. That bumped us to 14, in hind sight this was probably too big a leap (no one knew about the 12 school football pay-out at the time). It remained this way until Tulsa was invited to the AAC, then, to maintain the balance, WKU was invited.

Again, the additions did not happen in one fell swoop, there was a process and as far as 'pressure on these administrations' is concerned, I don't think that came into play until the final three additions (btw, the pluses and minuses of these schools were hashed over for months on these boards).

(06-30-2014 05:18 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 01:59 PM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 01:22 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 07:39 PM)ECUgradstudent Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 12:50 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  This really is a big problem for CUSA/SBC. Before CUSA had a huge tradition advantage on the SBC making CUSA a clear step up. They say that tradition never graduates. In this case the tradition did graduate to the AAC. CUSA reloaded with SBC schools and 4 recent upgrades (WKU, UTSA, Charlotte, ODU). I know WKU has been at the top level for 5 years or so but is still fairly recent.

Some of the FCS call ups by the SBC further compound the identity problem because schools like Appalachian State and Georgia Southern have recognized names in college football while CUSA additions in many cases don't. What was CUSA thinking by adding Charlotte over Appalachian State? That in particular made no sense by CUSA to bring in a school with a 15,000 seat stadium that had never played a down of football before.

Considering the MAC can't actually get 15k fans, should they move down to FBS as a conference?

MAC schools do 20,000 in the stands when winning.

When not winning.....it can vary from 15,000 at some of the more popular football schools to 7,500 at the less popular.

That's is atrocious. AAC basketball teams gets that many.

May want to check that.

NCAA Basketball Attendance Figures

That looks kinda complicated to figure out in the link you provided. Maybe after next year, which should be the first stable year for the AAC with all its old teams gone and all its new teams in place.

Not sure why 2012/13 figures would be applicable. 2013/14 attendance can be found here. Going forward, the only team consistently averaging over 15,000 is Memphis. The AAC averaged over 8k last year (obviously boosted by UL's numbers).