(01-23-2015 12:04 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 11:41 AM)FAUAEPi Wrote:  Reports stating the UAB will ask to delay decision until their review is completed in a few months. About to go to class, so I can't post the link until later.

CUSA can't wait that long. Regardless of the new review, they aren't going to reinstate football. UAB will focus the $$ towards basketball to pay stipends and such and become like VCU, Butler, Wichita St or FGSU.

In addition: I betting a somewhat of a long shot now that CUSA goes to 16 so USM goes to the East Division. NMSU, TX st and ULL are added to get 2 pretty regional divisions and a lot more content for ASN besides the whoevers get the tier 1 games.

I don't see why we can't wait a few months. And I see no reason to go to 16.

I'd rather not go to 16. Just spreading the money around. Especially for nmsu and tx st. I like UL-Laf in all sports. Always have.

As for UAB getting time and trying to revive football; if that's what's presented to the conference then I'd expect them to get the time they need. Had Charlotte and/or St. Louis been able to tell the conference there was a real chance to have football back in 2005, then I suspect we also would have been granted a year to try.

(01-23-2015 12:33 PM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 12:04 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 11:41 AM)FAUAEPi Wrote:  Reports stating the UAB will ask to delay decision until their review is completed in a few months. About to go to class, so I can't post the link until later.

CUSA can't wait that long. Regardless of the new review, they aren't going to reinstate football. UAB will focus the $$ towards basketball to pay stipends and such and become like VCU, Butler, Wichita St or FGSU.

In addition: I betting a somewhat of a long shot now that CUSA goes to 16 so USM goes to the East Division. NMSU, TX st and ULL are added to get 2 pretty regional divisions and a lot more content for ASN besides the whoevers get the tier 1 games.

I don't see why we can't wait a few months. And I see no reason to go to 16.

IA, there's no real reason to move to 14 or 16 right now

(01-23-2015 12:36 PM)techdawg88 Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 12:33 PM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 12:04 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 11:41 AM)FAUAEPi Wrote:  Reports stating the UAB will ask to delay decision until their review is completed in a few months. About to go to class, so I can't post the link until later.

CUSA can't wait that long. Regardless of the new review, they aren't going to reinstate football. UAB will focus the $$ towards basketball to pay stipends and such and become like VCU, Butler, Wichita St or FGSU.

In addition: I betting a somewhat of a long shot now that CUSA goes to 16 so USM goes to the East Division. NMSU, TX st and ULL are added to get 2 pretty regional divisions and a lot more content for ASN besides the whoevers get the tier 1 games.

I don't see why we can't wait a few months. And I see no reason to go to 16.

IA, there's no real reason to move to 14 or 16 right now

Agreed. If we lost UAB, I'd rather sit at 13. But if the conference wants to replace UAB, I don't see any reason we'd go to 16.

(01-23-2015 12:04 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 11:41 AM)FAUAEPi Wrote:  Reports stating the UAB will ask to delay decision until their review is completed in a few months. About to go to class, so I can't post the link until later.

CUSA can't wait that long. Regardless of the new review, they aren't going to reinstate football. UAB will focus the $$ towards basketball to pay stipends and such and become like VCU, Butler, Wichita St or FGSU.

In addition: I betting a somewhat of a long shot now that CUSA goes to 16 so USM goes to the East Division. NMSU, TX st and ULL are added to get 2 pretty regional divisions and a lot more content for ASN besides the whoevers get the tier 1 games.

I really doubt that NMSU is in play. ULL, Ark St, Texas St and/or one of the Georgia SBC schools would be the most likely. If only 1 is added then most likely ULL or ASU. If 3 then both of those plus someone in Georgia imo.

(01-23-2015 12:51 AM)HerdZoned Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 12:03 AM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 11:21 PM)HerdZoned Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 10:51 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 08:51 PM)Tiger Rag Wrote:  How long do the meetings usually last? Wondering when we might hear a verdict on UAB and a potential replacement.

You wont hear of a replacement right now but if their ad was smart he would plan to go straight from Boca to Macon Ga

Whats in Macon.

A sun headquarters

If or rather when UAB is expelled I look for them to go to the Horizon or Southern Conference.

They're too far south for the Horizon League.

Their only options are the A-Sun, Big South, Southern, OVC, or perhaps being a non-football member of the Sun Belt

UAB should have as much time as they need, up to say 5 years to find a new conference; what's the hurry? Who cares if they stick around and play their oly' sports here. And there's really no reason to add a school given the current environment (and UAB's remote possbility of football reinstatement).

(01-23-2015 01:18 PM)mufanatehc Wrote:  [UAB is] too far south for the Horizon League.

Their only options are the A-Sun, Big South, Southern, OVC, or perhaps being a non-football member of the Sun Belt

Agreed on Horizon.

I'm still hoping (for UAB's sake) that somehow, someway, something can be worked out to let them stay in C-USA. But if that's just not possible, then Sun Belt is next-best option. One of the smaller southern-based leagues like A-Sun is the nightmare scenario but at this point I can't rule it out as a possibility.

(01-23-2015 01:37 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 01:18 PM)mufanatehc Wrote:  [UAB is] too far south for the Horizon League.

Their only options are the A-Sun, Big South, Southern, OVC, or perhaps being a non-football member of the Sun Belt

Agreed on Horizon.

I'm still hoping (for UAB's sake) that somehow, someway, something can be worked out to let them stay in C-USA. But if that's just not possible, then Sun Belt is next-best option. One of the smaller southern-based leagues like A-Sun is the nightmare scenario but at this point I can't rule it out as a possibility.

FIU FAU
ODU Marshall
WKU MTSU
Charlotte College of Charleston

UAB USA
LA Tech USM
Rice UNT
UTSA UTEP


I would like to see 14 in football and 16 in basketball. College of Charleston is usually pretty good at basketball, they have a new 5k seat arena and they are in a state that we have never been in. USA would be a great replacement for UAB football.

Let them stay. The only thing I see screwy with it is they will have much more financial resource to put into basketball, giving them an advantage against the football playing members. Maybe let them stay with conditions, such as they can only pay a stipend equal to or less than the largest football CUSA school stipend.

(01-23-2015 12:44 PM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 12:36 PM)techdawg88 Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 12:33 PM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 12:04 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 11:41 AM)FAUAEPi Wrote:  Reports stating the UAB will ask to delay decision until their review is completed in a few months. About to go to class, so I can't post the link until later.

CUSA can't wait that long. Regardless of the new review, they aren't going to reinstate football. UAB will focus the $$ towards basketball to pay stipends and such and become like VCU, Butler, Wichita St or FGSU.

In addition: I betting a somewhat of a long shot now that CUSA goes to 16 so USM goes to the East Division. NMSU, TX st and ULL are added to get 2 pretty regional divisions and a lot more content for ASN besides the whoevers get the tier 1 games.

I don't see why we can't wait a few months. And I see no reason to go to 16.

IA, there's no real reason to move to 14 or 16 right now

Agreed. If we lost UAB, I'd rather sit at 13. But if the conference wants to replace UAB, I don't see any reason we'd go to 16.

Basically, my thoughts are to geography and TV inventory. Going to 16 provides that and give some better scheduling for the Olympic sports. But, the best reason in my opinion to go to 16 is because other realignment isn't done.

(01-23-2015 01:53 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 12:44 PM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 12:36 PM)techdawg88 Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 12:33 PM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 12:04 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  CUSA can't wait that long. Regardless of the new review, they aren't going to reinstate football. UAB will focus the $$ towards basketball to pay stipends and such and become like VCU, Butler, Wichita St or FGSU.

In addition: I betting a somewhat of a long shot now that CUSA goes to 16 so USM goes to the East Division. NMSU, TX st and ULL are added to get 2 pretty regional divisions and a lot more content for ASN besides the whoevers get the tier 1 games.

I don't see why we can't wait a few months. And I see no reason to go to 16.

IA, there's no real reason to move to 14 or 16 right now

Agreed. If we lost UAB, I'd rather sit at 13. But if the conference wants to replace UAB, I don't see any reason we'd go to 16.

Basically, my thoughts are to geography and TV inventory. Going to 16 provides that and give some better scheduling for the Olympic sports. But, the best reason in my opinion to go to 16 is because other realignment isn't done.

We only need 12. 13-14 should be fine for now. The only reason I could see to go above that using future expansion as the reason would be if it's an FCS team we want to bring up that would have to go through a transitional period.

Can't let them stay. Apologize if someone else has already thrown this idea out, but we could offer to set up a scheduling agreement in some sports ala Notre Dame and the ACC in football. I know MT, WKU, and others would be totally fine playing UAB in basketball at least once a year.

(01-23-2015 01:53 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Basically, my thoughts are to geography and TV inventory. Going to 16 provides that and give some better scheduling for the Olympic sports. But, the best reason in my opinion to go to 16 is because other realignment isn't done.

The thing about geography and programming inventory is that a) whatever you add in terms of TV revenue via more inventory is offset by giving the additional schools their share of said revenue, and b) extending geography also adds to travel costs unless it's done in a way to set up two divisions with little interaction (a.k.a. "an airport meeting waiting to happen").

I don't see the point in stocking up on schools just because more realignment may be coming. Anyone to whom you might extend an invitation is still going to be there for the taking after that happens. It's all too fluid anyway. Heck, we thought we were set with 14, then UAB dropped football.

Football will be back in 2016. You can print that.

(01-23-2015 02:58 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 01:53 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Basically, my thoughts are to geography and TV inventory. Going to 16 provides that and give some better scheduling for the Olympic sports. But, the best reason in my opinion to go to 16 is because other realignment isn't done.

The thing about geography and programming inventory is that a) whatever you add in terms of TV revenue via more inventory is offset by giving the additional schools their share of said revenue, and b) extending geography also adds to travel costs unless it's done in a way to set up two divisions with little interaction (a.k.a. "an airport meeting waiting to happen").

I don't see the point in stocking up on schools just because more realignment may be coming. Anyone to whom you might extend an invitation is still going to be there for the taking after that happens. It's all too fluid anyway. Heck, we thought we were set with 14, then UAB dropped football.

I agree that you are dividing the conference revenues up more; however each school could stand to SAVE more than that by significantly reducing travel expenses. And having a tighter geographical footprint within divisions would also reduce travel time, and hence, the time students are missing classes. With this in mind, the model for 2 8-team divisions makes a lot of sense.
Presidents still need to decide on which programs to take on. I that regard, I see lots of give/take. Should be interesting.

(01-23-2015 01:45 PM)monarx Wrote:  Let them stay.

The presidence was set before 2005. They can't stay, the conference had no pity on Charlotte, Marquette or St Louis. They can't let UAB slide either. UAB and the admin knew what the ramifications would be if they discontinued football.

If UAB is not allowed to stay, they need to be replaced. In two or three years they can be taken back in along with a 16th member. Sixteen makes more sense to me anyway. It tightens geography, cuts down on meaningless crossover games, builds regional rivalries etc.

I agree. The conference by-laws are pretty clear and should be adhered to. If for some reason football is not restored for 2016 we should be given the boot. That said I a pretty certain UAB will be allowed to sort things out and get our ducks in a row. If the unthinkable happens and we are not allowed to bring football back we should be shown the door.