(06-04-2015 02:27 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  2014 TV Ratings.

This is the lone disadvantage of not being on ESPN.

Many TV stations across the nation automatically live on ESPN or ESPN 2. The same cannot be said for Fox Sports 1.

So, it's difficult to compare ours vs. theirs, because a MAC Tuesday game is going to have higher ratings than we get on FS1 on Saturday (at least until Fox cuts into ESPN's domination which may take years). So, what would our numbers look like on ESPN? It's difficult to say with certainty.

This is something we just have to accept.

It seems to that this is basically a meaningless discussion. The presidents resoundingly rejected expansion to 16 teams something like 18 months ago. I have seen nothing to suggest that they have had some kind of epiphany and now are pushing for 16. Why in the world spend so much effort aruging a non-issue?

(06-04-2015 02:34 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 02:27 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  2014 TV Ratings.

This is the lone disadvantage of not being on ESPN.

Many TV stations across the nation automatically live on ESPN or ESPN 2. The same cannot be said for Fox Sports 1.

So, it's difficult to compare ours vs. theirs, because a MAC Tuesday game is going to have higher ratings than we get on FS1 on Saturday (at least until Fox cuts into ESPN's domination which may take years). So, what would our numbers look like on ESPN? It's difficult to say with certainty.

This is something we just have to accept.

The really damning thing to me is we have the lowest number of national broadcasts. Just 15.

(06-04-2015 08:54 AM)Niner National Wrote:  Can we stop pretending that Georgia State is some basketball powerhouse? They had a great team last year and will probably have a pretty good one again, but it's not like they have a long history of success. They have bad facilities and, like the rest of us, are one bad coaching hire away from being awful and irrelevant again. Decisions should never be made from looking at things in a 1-2 year vacuum.

Any decisions we make going forward if we ever expand should be based on support. We don't need more teams in the league with 1000 butts in seats.

Amen to this.

Also, we need to be focused on football. That is where the money is at.

(06-04-2015 11:06 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 10:28 AM)bladhmadh Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 08:49 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  I've never understood the rationale for going to fourteen. Sixteen just seems silly.

At the time there was massive realignment going on. CUSA was losing members en mass and it looked like we were about to lose a few to the mountain. Boisie and San Diego St had agreed to join the Big East and it looked like UTEP and a player that be named later were leaving CUSA. The Big East was still talking about going to 16. CUSA acted proactively and added WKU and ODU. Boisie extorted the mountain and San Diego stayed which ment UTEP was going nowhere and we ended with 14. Better 14 than becoming another WAC. In addition they had yet to pass the twelve team payout maximum for the non cartel conferences. In the context of the events and the time in was not a bad move

That's not exactly how things went down.

Going off memory but that's the gist

(06-04-2015 11:22 AM)Afflicted Wrote:  I like the 16-member concept. Better rivalries means better gameday revenue and less travel.

Not totally opposed to the idea, but as others have stated, it would have to be the right two teams. At this point, I can't think of anyone that looks like a good add. (Maybe Georgia Southern, if they ever start taking basketball seriously).

I think we would be more open to expansion if some form of deregulation passed. If they do away with the rule about cross over games, then yes I could see us going to 16 or 18. I would also be more than OK with this too.

16 would allow us to have an extra OOC date.

I would like to either take 2 teams in the West and slide UAB and So Miss back over to the East. Or take 2 teams in the East and slide WKU and MTSU to the West. Or do we take 1 from each the East and West so no one has to switch divisions?

Its much harder than just saying, hey, lets add these guys and play some football.

You do four - four team pods. You rotate the games similar to an NFL schedule.

(06-04-2015 04:30 PM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  You do four - four team pods. You rotate the games similar to an NFL schedule.

Marshall would be against a 4 team pod unless they were put in a pod with the Florida Twins. We recruit Florida hard and want to play a home and away with them each year.

(06-04-2015 08:26 AM)BoKnows Wrote:  I agree that the Birmingham market will be a great asset to TV negotiations, and CUSA is in a better position now versus last week in regards to television negotiations.
That said, given Banowsky's affinity for the 16 team model, I wonder if we'd be better off (in light of recent events) to jump to 16 SOON.
IMO, Banowsky should approach our television negotiations with just that arrow in his arsenal. The B1G obviously felt that growing the league would help maximize television, and who is to say that the numbers wont come out better for us all (expenditures vs income) if we make the Eastern and Western footprints more dense (allowing for closer rivalries) and basically operate the two divisions as their own leagues that come together at playoff time. With an imaginative branding campaign, I think being the first 16 team football conference since the WAC could set CUSA apart.
Given our headquarters are based there, I think we'd be well served to plant the CUSA flag in Texas and take Texas State (effectively locking out the MWC) and off their tourney success I think we should offer Georgia State to bolster basketball.
Those are two programs that have a world of potential under the CUSA umbrella, shrink our footprints, and give us tons of marketing possibilities. I REALLY like the idea of establishing the brand as the only conference with 5 Texas schools (lets not forget that Texas is a HUGE state, where football is religion... lots of eyes on TV sets).

If you look at the map, they'd fill the two biggest holes in the East and the West. We'd almost be 2 separate bus leagues (and basketball would be better).



The main thing I want to know is: (1) Would the money be better with those 16 - and a greater regional identity? and (2) If the money is not better, are we really going to get that much more per school with 14 vs 16, that outweighs the potential savings on running basically two denser bus league footprints that could play amongst themselves and, then, really make our playoffs that much bigger of an event when the time comes.

Just like we have a profanity filter, can we do something to block all talk of going to 16?

(06-04-2015 04:30 PM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  You do four - four team pods. You rotate the games similar to an NFL schedule.

Pods defeat the purpose. You don't want to match a southwest pod with a northeast pod. That's what killed WAC16. It divided regional rivalries. The advantage of going to 16 would be to divide the divisions along permanent regional lines so rivals are playing one another every year.

(06-04-2015 04:05 PM)bladhmadh Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 11:06 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 10:28 AM)bladhmadh Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 08:49 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  I've never understood the rationale for going to fourteen. Sixteen just seems silly.

At the time there was massive realignment going on. CUSA was losing members en mass and it looked like we were about to lose a few to the mountain. Boisie and San Diego St had agreed to join the Big East and it looked like UTEP and a player that be named later were leaving CUSA. The Big East was still talking about going to 16. CUSA acted proactively and added WKU and ODU. Boisie extorted the mountain and San Diego stayed which ment UTEP was going nowhere and we ended with 14. Better 14 than becoming another WAC. In addition they had yet to pass the twelve team payout maximum for the non cartel conferences. In the context of the events and the time in was not a bad move

That's not exactly how things went down.

Going off memory but that's the gist

May need some luminosity then. For starters ODU was the first or one of the first to be invited and Western was the last. These occurred in different years. The other stuff is also off, but I can't remember the details myself. Since having kids that don't sleep my memory has gone to hell.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(06-04-2015 11:25 AM)ATTALLABLAZE Wrote:  I would be in favor if we went to four team pods and we had the right teams. I would take two teams that help in not only football but basketball. That's the bread winners. We certainly don't need to drop in RPI and they need to bring something to the table.

Problem is, there's nobody out there who's both available and who fills that bill.

Quote:Before it's all over everyone will be in 16 team leagues.

So much weird sh*t has happened in this business that I have stopped using words like "never" or "inevitable". At least for now, though, I really don't see how 16 makes sense for anybody. But who knows. The people who make the decisions will follow the $$$ no matter how irrational the outcome appears to be on the surface.

(06-04-2015 06:35 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 04:05 PM)bladhmadh Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 11:06 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 10:28 AM)bladhmadh Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 08:49 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  I've never understood the rationale for going to fourteen. Sixteen just seems silly.

At the time there was massive realignment going on. CUSA was losing members en mass and it looked like we were about to lose a few to the mountain. Boisie and San Diego St had agreed to join the Big East and it looked like UTEP and a player that be named later were leaving CUSA. The Big East was still talking about going to 16. CUSA acted proactively and added WKU and ODU. Boisie extorted the mountain and San Diego stayed which ment UTEP was going nowhere and we ended with 14. Better 14 than becoming another WAC. In addition they had yet to pass the twelve team payout maximum for the non cartel conferences. In the context of the events and the time in was not a bad move

That's not exactly how things went down.

Going off memory but that's the gist

May need some luminosity then. For starters ODU was the first or one of the first to be invited and Western was the last. These occurred in different years. The other stuff is also off, but I can't remember the details myself. Since having kids that don't sleep my memory has gone to hell.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

ODU was part of the six-team migration with UTSA, North Texas, FIU, Charlotte and Louisiana Tech, but they were the last of the six to officially accept. ECU and Tulane left for the then-Big East, opening the door for Middle Tennessee and Florida Atlantic. When Tulsa left for the Big East/AAC, Western Kentucky took its place.

I believe that's how it went down, and I'm too damn lazy to look it up.

(06-04-2015 06:35 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 04:05 PM)bladhmadh Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 11:06 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 10:28 AM)bladhmadh Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 08:49 AM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  I've never understood the rationale for going to fourteen. Sixteen just seems silly.

At the time there was massive realignment going on. CUSA was losing members en mass and it looked like we were about to lose a few to the mountain. Boisie and San Diego St had agreed to join the Big East and it looked like UTEP and a player that be named later were leaving CUSA. The Big East was still talking about going to 16. CUSA acted proactively and added WKU and ODU. Boisie extorted the mountain and San Diego stayed which ment UTEP was going nowhere and we ended with 14. Better 14 than becoming another WAC. In addition they had yet to pass the twelve team payout maximum for the non cartel conferences. In the context of the events and the time in was not a bad move

That's not exactly how things went down.

Going off memory but that's the gist

May need some luminosity then. For starters ODU was the first or one of the first to be invited and Western was the last. These occurred in different years. The other stuff is also off, but I can't remember the details myself. Since having kids that don't sleep my memory has gone to hell.
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

May not agree with much you post, but certainly agree with that statement, haha....I know the feeling!

(06-04-2015 08:54 AM)Niner National Wrote:  Can we stop pretending that Georgia State is some basketball powerhouse? They had a great team last year and will probably have a pretty good one again, but it's not like they have a long history of success. They have bad facilities and, like the rest of us, are one bad coaching hire away from being awful and irrelevant again. Decisions should never be made from looking at things in a 1-2 year vacuum.

Any decisions we make going forward if we ever expand should be based on support. We don't need more teams in the league with 1000 butts in seats.

Very well said.

(06-04-2015 11:08 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 10:58 AM)40smokingcannon Wrote:  Not that I really have an opinion but......is it possible for CUSA to add Army and UMass to get to sixteen? No disrespect to the usual candidates (LA-Laf, GA St, Tex St, Ark St.....) but I would think Army especially, and UMass for basketball cred would do much more for CUSA (and potentially more $$$) than anyone else.

Army = history, national appeal, Army/Navy game tie in, used to be in CUSA, etc.
UMass = Boston/Northeast market, basketball pedigree, football would be a work-in-progress, state flagship (?)...etc.

Then maybe you guys could get a Wichita St, Saint Louis, Dayton, VCU for 16 in basketball/olympics as I'm sure Army would be football only.

Am I far off or is this realistic?

You guys are more likely to lose to UConn and/or Cincy or some other two before we add those schools.

And then once you lose those you will add Army and Umass. Cheers.

Lastly, we are not adding any non-football playing schools. We almost just had to kick out UAB in case you weren't paying attention.

this is the most accurate assessment yet

NBCSports had an article saying that GaState may not get Turner Field in the short term, but probably in the 2020's (with that news and the inadequate basketball arena, they truly are a less appealing option).

I truly feel that the established schools are exasperated by all of the changes and the new schools are trying to make sense of what they got themselves into by changing situations. As a fan of a new school, I talk about expansion as finding schools like mine, schools that are regional draws, that may attract the similar bodies of students, fans and athletes. This conference and its sweeping footprint is an amalgam of squares, triangles and circles, I am not sure any one container holds them together.
This conference has a number of challenges that resemble what the WAC had, and what the WAC failed at addressing: TV, rivalry and travel.
The first cohesion point has to be a primary TV partner; looking for CUSA content on ESPN, CBS, FOX, al-jazeera, TASS etc., is a fools game for anyone save the CUSA fans themselves. Non-league watchers are not going to hit the scan button to find our content, we need to have a main TV focal point.
We need to cut down the travel: pods, strict divisional alignments and schedules. Texas schools need less Mid-Atlantic/Mid-South flights and vice versa. Tennis teams, swimming squads and other Olympic sports are hampered by additional travel times and budgeting. We need to have a better travel plan.

(06-04-2015 08:32 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  NO.

(06-04-2015 08:34 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 08:32 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  NO.

This.

NO