MT, ODU, USM, Marshall, La Tech, UAB, WKY, Rice, and Charlotte just leave and start their own conference?

Yes, we will lose automatic NCAA tournament bid. But we should be able to get one in a few years.

Yes, we will lose bowl affiliations but its not like we still won't go to bowl games. All these crappy bowls need teams to play in them. It's ridiculous now with the bowl games anyway with 5-7 teams playing in them. The only bowl that matters is the access bowl.

I just think it would be worth it to got through a little short term pain to correct things for the long run. If we can get those core teams together we could really build a nice competitive conference in basketball and football that would probably get more TV money, better bowl agreements, and more teams in the NCAA tournamnet.

(09-24-2017 02:45 PM)MT FAN Wrote:  MT, ODU, USM, Marshall, La Tech, UAB, WKY, Rice, and Charlotte just leave and start their own conference?

Yes, we will lose automatic NCAA tournament bid. But we should be able to get one in a few years.

Yes, we will lose bowl affiliations but its not like we still won't go to bowl games. All these crappy bowls need teams to play in them. It's ridiculous now with the bowl games anyway with 5-7 teams playing in them. The only bowl that matters is the access bowl.

I just think it would be worth it to got through a little short term pain to correct things for the long run. If we can get those core teams together we could really build a nice competitive conference in basketball and football that would probably get more TV money, better bowl agreements, and more teams in the NCAA tournamnet.

I don't normally agree with MT fans often, but im about sick of whats happening in CUSA right now, too many schools that are just happy being here and Athletic directors that just don't get it. Find 8-10 teams that have a true future plan set into place and pair up.

La Tech
Marshall
ODU
UAB
WKU
USM
then a few select that have great plans to fix things and fit into a travel footprint for both football and basketball.

Oh, another Realignment thread.

What can that group execute as a strategic or tactical plan objective that C-USA can’t today? Diving a $2.5m media deal 10 ways instead of 14 is the cost to finance two student athletes per school. Clearly not worth giving up the G5 access or payouts, which would be the biggest loss here. It’s 13 years before they have to renegotiate the Access and Contract Bowls, so there is no reason a non-CUSA league would be included.

I’ve made the case before in other threads, CUSA doesn’t have an expenditure problem, it has a revenue growth problem. How do we make sure we are growing exposure, fansbases, and organic revenue? The truth isn’t we’re actually losing ground instead of building revenue. Two decades ago, CUSA was one of the most creative and aggressive conference leadership out there. Today, it’s probably the least proactive. I don’t know what those exact schools that are already in this league spinning off would accomplish that changing the conference office wouldn’t?

(09-24-2017 03:12 PM)CoachMaclid Wrote:  What can that group execute as a strategic or tactical plan objective that C-USA can’t today? Diving a $2.5m media deal 10 ways instead of 14 is the cost to finance two student athletes per school. Clearly not worth giving up the G5 access or payouts, which would be the biggest loss here. It’s 13 years before they have to renegotiate the Access and Contract Bowls, so there no reason a non-CUSA league would be included.

I’ve made the case before in other threads, CUSA doesn’t have an expenditure problem, it has a revenue growth problem. How do we make sure we are growing exposure, fansbases, and organic revenue? The truth isn’t we’re actually losing ground instead of building revenue. Two decades ago, CUSA was one of the most creative and aggressive conference leadership out there. Today, it’s probably the release proactive. I don’t know what those exact schools that are already in this league spinning off would accomplish that changing the conference office wouldn’t?

Put restrictions on our members, make it like being employed, you don't do your job you get fired. If we don't make the members responsible, things won't get better

I can't believe schools like MT and WKU look down on us. Don't worry, we'll eventually move on to bigger things so you'll get your wish of not sharing a conference with us.

(09-24-2017 03:12 PM)CoachMaclid Wrote:  What can that group execute as a strategic or tactical plan objective that C-USA can’t today? Diving a $2.5m media deal 10 ways instead of 14 is the cost to finance two student athletes per school. Clearly not worth giving up the G5 access or payouts, which would be the biggest loss here. It’s 13 years before they have to renegotiate the Access and Contract Bowls, so there no reason a non-CUSA league would be included.

I’ve made the case before in other threads, CUSA doesn’t have an expenditure problem, it has a revenue growth problem. How do we make sure we are growing exposure, fansbases, and organic revenue? The truth isn’t we’re actually losing ground instead of building revenue. Two decades ago, CUSA was one of the most creative and aggressive conference leadership out there. Today, it’s probably the release proactive. I don’t know what those exact schools that are already in this league spinning off would accomplish that changing the conference office wouldn’t?

Can't argue with that. C-USA has become too reactive and lost all creativity.

(09-24-2017 03:21 PM)wkuhilltopperfan Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 03:12 PM)CoachMaclid Wrote:  What can that group execute as a strategic or tactical plan objective that C-USA can’t today? Diving a $2.5m media deal 10 ways instead of 14 is the cost to finance two student athletes per school. Clearly not worth giving up the G5 access or payouts, which would be the biggest loss here. It’s 13 years before they have to renegotiate the Access and Contract Bowls, so there no reason a non-CUSA league would be included.

I’ve made the case before in other threads, CUSA doesn’t have an expenditure problem, it has a revenue growth problem. How do we make sure we are growing exposure, fansbases, and organic revenue? The truth isn’t we’re actually losing ground instead of building revenue. Two decades ago, CUSA was one of the most creative and aggressive conference leadership out there. Today, it’s probably the release proactive. I don’t know what those exact schools that are already in this league spinning off would accomplish that changing the conference office wouldn’t?

Put restrictions on our members, make it like being employed, you don't do your job you get fired. If we don't make the members responsible, things won't get better

I like the overall idea, but I think we need to go about it in a different way. Lets face it, one team has to finish last in the conference every season. We just need to develop this conference to a point where that last place team is still a better program then those at the bottom of most other G5 conferences.

I think most would agree that 14 is too big when the playoff money is capped at 10 programs. First, we need the majority of presidents to agree on a set of investment and expenditure standards, and also facility standards. The programs that can't meet the standards will remove themselves.

(09-24-2017 03:24 PM)correcamino Wrote:  I can't believe schools like MT and WKU look down on us. Don't worry, we'll eventually move on to bigger things so you'll get your wish of not sharing a conference with us.

I'd prefer UTSA play schools in the West rather than the East. I would rather be in the MWC. I didn't even know some of the CUSA schools existed until we joined the conference.

(09-24-2017 03:49 PM)LRP Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 03:24 PM)correcamino Wrote:  I can't believe schools like MT and WKU look down on us. Don't worry, we'll eventually move on to bigger things so you'll get your wish of not sharing a conference with us.

I'd prefer UTSA play schools in the West rather than the East. I would rather be in the MWC. I didn't even know some of the CUSA schools existed until we joined the conference.

Yeah I didn't know you guys existed until the WAC folded

(09-24-2017 03:24 PM)correcamino Wrote:  I can't believe schools like MT and WKU look down on us. Don't worry, we'll eventually move on to bigger things so you'll get your wish of not sharing a conference with us.

Get your panties out of a bunch, I don't recall anybody saying anything bad towards UTSA, my only complaint would be the footprint don't fit my ideas

(09-24-2017 02:45 PM)MT FAN Wrote:  MT, ODU, USM, Marshall, La Tech, UAB, WKY, Rice, and Charlotte just leave and start their own conference?

Yes, we will lose automatic NCAA tournament bid. But we should be able to get one in a few years.

Yes, we will lose bowl affiliations but its not like we still won't go to bowl games. All these crappy bowls need teams to play in them. It's ridiculous now with the bowl games anyway with 5-7 teams playing in them. The only bowl that matters is the access bowl.

I just think it would be worth it to got through a little short term pain to correct things for the long run. If we can get those core teams together we could really build a nice competitive conference in basketball and football that would probably get more TV money, better bowl agreements, and more teams in the NCAA tournamnet.

Why would you want Rice? Might as well add Louisiana-Monroe or Miami U.

Rice is going down a very downward spiral.

(09-24-2017 03:01 PM)Cardiff Wrote:  Oh, another Realignment thread.

In the realignment forum? What are the odds?

(09-24-2017 03:12 PM)CoachMaclid Wrote:  What can that group execute as a strategic or tactical plan objective that C-USA can’t today? Diving a $2.5m media deal 10 ways instead of 14 is the cost to finance two student athletes per school. Clearly not worth giving up the G5 access or payouts, which would be the biggest loss here. It’s 13 years before they have to renegotiate the Access and Contract Bowls, so there is no reason a non-CUSA league would be included.

I’ve made the case before in other threads, CUSA doesn’t have an expenditure problem, it has a revenue growth problem. How do we make sure we are growing exposure, fansbases, and organic revenue? The truth isn’t we’re actually losing ground instead of building revenue. Two decades ago, CUSA was one of the most creative and aggressive conference leadership out there. Today, it’s probably the least proactive. I don’t know what those exact schools that are already in this league spinning off would accomplish that changing the conference office wouldn’t?

This. The contract is set. No new conferences can get in on the Access Bowl....13 years

Could 10 schools vote out 4 to slim things down?

(09-25-2017 06:10 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Could 10 schools vote out 4 to slim things down?

I've not seen the CUSA Bylaws but under Sun Belt bylaws (12 teams) a team can be expelled by a unanimous vote with the team to be expelled not being permitted to vote -OR- the league can change the membership criteria that would result in a team losing membership by a 3/4ths vote (9 votes).

If CUSA is similar (don't know) it would take 11 votes to do that.

I thought MARKETZ! were the answer to everything regarding college sports??

I like the idea of all of the C-USA schools, save ODU, Charlotte, FIU, and FAU, pulling out. Take that group of 10 and maybe add ULL and Ark St and you either have a solid 10 team league or a solid 12. Add the 4 left out schools to the Sunbelt and you have a very nice league that mostly hugs the Atlantic Coast--except football outliers ULM and Texas St and the two nonfootball schools. The east coast schools probably change the membership requirement to require football forcing them out.

(09-24-2017 02:45 PM)MT FAN Wrote:  MT, ODU, USM, Marshall, La Tech, UAB, WKY, Rice, and Charlotte just leave and start their own conference?

Yes, we will lose automatic NCAA tournament bid. But we should be able to get one in a few years.

Yes, we will lose bowl affiliations but its not like we still won't go to bowl games. All these crappy bowls need teams to play in them. It's ridiculous now with the bowl games anyway with 5-7 teams playing in them. The only bowl that matters is the access bowl.

I just think it would be worth it to got through a little short term pain to correct things for the long run. If we can get those core teams together we could really build a nice competitive conference in basketball and football that would probably get more TV money, better bowl agreements, and more teams in the NCAA tournament.

Actually you would probably get an exemption and have a bid if you break in a couple years with that group. The big issue is the following bylaw

Quote:20.02.5.4 Continuity. A multisport conference shall establish continuity. To establish continuity, a multisport conference must meet the requirements of Bylaw 20.02.5.1. In addition, the conference must meet the requirements of Bylaws 20.02.5.2 and 20.02.5.3 for a period of eight consecutive years. (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

The Big East had 7 members and 6 in basketball that played continuously for 8 years when formed as a new conference, so was essentially given a pass on this rule For your proposed conference. Only 4 of the group of schools you listed --USM and UAB since 1995, Rice and Marshall since 2005-- meet that 8 year requirement. MTSU, ODU, La Tech, and Charlotte joined in 2013 (WKU in 2014). This means 2020-21 is the 8th year the group would be together and the earliest you could form a conference and be fairly assured you'd have an automatic qualifier granted your group. So these schools need to stay in CUSA in '18-19 and '19-20 before splitting.

Now how would P5 and G5 react? I suspect P5 would say, "whatever, you can get your share from the G5 pile of money, which is not increasing." The G5 however definitely not want to 1/6th of their share to a new conference, so it there will likely be a reduced payout for this group until the next distribution package is agreed upon.