NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 1:24 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 137 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 11:47 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2002 2:41 am
Posts: 167

Quote:


Although Louisiana Tech has earned their stripes to be in CUSA, I can't see UCF passing up an all-sports arrangement with CUSA for a football-only spot in the Big East. Being a one-sport member in a conference is the pits, because you never develop a relationship with your opponents and are always considered a stepchild. Remember, UCF is in the Atlantic Sun for the other sports and has a 5,000-seat basketball arena. If they can find a home for those other sports they'd better take it. Marshall saw the light and I think UCF will too.

We all do not know what has been going on at the Big East meetings. Alot of people have speculated that there is going to be split in 5 years and that is why the Big East is expanding to have equal numbers of BBall and FBall schools. If UCF is told that, they would be stupid not to accept a partial membership right now with a conference that probably will be in the BCS. CUSA will be weaker without UC , USF and Louisville and definitely will not be BCS. The one thing that benefits your football program is BCS inclusion.
On the other hand if the Big East does not plan on a split, it would be a much tougher decision, but i stll think they would go Big East.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 27, 2003 4:23 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 7:21 am
Posts: 748
Location: Midwest
Still maintain the title of this thread is dead wrong...
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ::)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 01, 2003 3:00 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 10:08 am
Posts: 16
Sorry Javaman and Gunnerfan for the misinformation. Just another illustration of the dangers of working from memory. I inadvertently mixed information from two news articles. There is no mention of Tulane or any MWC interest in the Green Wave program in either but they were mentioned in one article and I put them into the mix.


Quote:

Welcome to the fray, Virginian, and allow me to echo the questions by Javaman. Having not heard any discussion of Houtson or Tulane jumping to the MWC, this concept surprises me completely. Tulane will rediscover their athletics, but not at the expense of their academic status and reputation. And while maintaining an affiliation with TCU (and serving as a travel partner for them) may soften the concept of them switching conferences, it seems more unlikely now with the additional Texas schools coming to CUSA from the WAC.

Further, the articles posted on this board indicate the MWC is thinking of only adding 1 school, two at best, with Boise and Fresno St. leading the pack after TCU. The prospect of schools moving to either CUSA or the MWC is to abandon the geographic disparity that plagued the WAC. Should those three schools join the MWC, you'd essentially be recreating that same problem, IMO.

Granted, I wouldn't put it past these conferences to do anything, based upon some actions already taken! :D


Last edited by virginian on Sat Nov 01, 2003 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2003 4:03 pm 
CUSA has been dead in the water the day it came into existance.

TEXT


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2003 2:51 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 136
Kind of a harsh assessment, mysteryman, and I don't know that I agree. For one, it's dead in the water compared to what? The MAC? WAC? MWC? They have 5 bowl tie-ins for football and, although they will lose at least one after next year, will still have a championship game. Not too bad for a mid-major. If TCU wins out, they'll have two undefeated teams in less than a decade. The addition of SMU, Rice and Tulsa provides for a nice regional rivalry in the southwest, and the addition of Marshall more than makes up for losing Cincinnati.

It was, first and foremost, a basketball conference, and a good one at that. That USA managed to build its football brand into anything at all is commendable, even on the eve of its implosion. The Big East did the same thing -- take a basketball conference and develop football. We have seen that it doesn't work (Big East), but USA has learned that lesson -- something the Big East is still struggling with. Beginning in 2005, it will be a league of 12 all-sports schools, hosting a championship in football and building its basketball back up to the A-10 or MWC level. Memphis won 23 games last year, and UAB 21. Of the newcomers, Tulsa won 23, Rice 19, and Central Florida 21. They'll get 2 in the tournament most years, and may get lucky every once in a while with 3. They're a mid-major, but an A-10/MVC/WAC mid-major, not a Sun Belt mid-major.

And speaking of the WAC and Sun Belt, you want to talk about dead in the water...Karl Benson and Wright Waters pray to their gods every night that Craig Thompson and the MWC presidents don't decide to go on a shopping spree.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2003 8:05 pm 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 6:21 pm
Posts: 70
Location: Louisville

Quote:
Still maintain the title of this thread is dead wrong...
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ::)


:D :D :D Remove TCU and Houston from CUSA, and CUSA will be near financial death. Oh, it may continue to exist as a low level Mid-Major!


Last edited by wilkie01 on Sun Nov 09, 2003 8:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2003 9:08 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 8:45 pm
Posts: 315
Location: Great Northwest
Interesting point wilkie. Could the MWC be targeting TCU just to weaken an obvious BCS competitor? We all realize that the WAC has no chance at gaining access to BCS, so even if they are a recruiting pain for the MWC, they are NOT competition for a BCS slot.

If the MWC sees C-USA and BigE as their main competitors for a BCS spot (MAC isn't there w/ Marshall leaving and the bottom few facing 1-AA status), then why not try to weaken your true enemy, instead of a regional "little brother" conference. If the MWC were to take TCU and Houston (an ideal travel partner) that would make the BCS a two horse race with the BigE.

I've been searching for a reason TCU fits into the MWC, could this be it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2003 9:32 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 136
I haven't heard anything about Houston. My first thought is it hardly fits the MWC profile.

If MWC wants to make a play for BCS status and is going against the Big East, then Houston doesn't really help. Hawaii, Boise State and Fresno State do. TCU is a tremendous help, but curious to add a lone school in Texas, 900 miles away from the nearest MWC school (New Mexico).

As for near financial death, Wilkie, the MAC has survived for 50 years with a lot less cash and seems to be doing well, particularly at the top. USA still does have TCU and Houston and is moving toward more regionalized competition, at least in the southwest (La Tech to replace TCU if the MWC comes a-calling). A championship game in football will add more incremental money than the MAC currently gets for its game. They have two programs in particular with cash problems (UAB and Tulane), but an up-and-coming Central Florida and Marshall may help to offset that.

USA had designs on emerging as a BCS conference, and maybe the latest round of expansion has set them back a couple of years. Maybe another half-step behind MWC. But they still have the WAC, MAC and Sun Belt beat by a nice margin.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2003 12:45 am 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 8:07 pm
Posts: 73
I would not bet on La. Tech. jumping to C-USA if TCU leaves. In fact C-USA may have a dog fight on there hands keeping certain western members from jumping to the WAC and will almost certainly lose some if two teams go.

TCU and Houston

TCU and Tulsa (not sure if Tulsa could still jump without penalties)

In any event losing TCU and any mid level team from the west would totaly destablize the conference and you might end up seeing Tulane, Memphis, S. Miss and Houston or Tulsa looking west for a place to call home.

This would obviously be the best scenario for the WAC. In fact this would certainly allow the WAC to keep pace with the MWC if not surpase it. As things stand now the MWC has apsolutely nothing over the WAC except perception...which actulay is better then nothing.

MWC
TCU
Houston / Tulsa
Colorado St.
AFA
New Mexico
Wyoming
BYU
Utah
Nevada Las Vegas
San Diego St.

Compared to

W-WAC
Fresno St.
Boise St.
Hawaii
Nevada
SJSU
Utah St.
**Idaho / N. Arizona**

E-WAC
Texas El Paso
New Mexico St.
La. Tech.
S. Miss
N. Texas / Houston / Tulane / Memphis
Tulane / Memphis / Houston / N. Texas
**Any one of the above**


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2003 1:14 am 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 136
Actually, MWC has more than perception, they have a superior non-conference record, both head-to-head and overall. MWC wins about half its non-conference games vs. 1-A opponents, while the WAC wins only about 1/3. And this year the WAC is even worse -- about a .250 W-L record vs. 1-A teams out of conference. 8 wins total. Some nice ones (Michigan State, Oregon State, Washington), but just as many against the Sin Belt.

Head-to-head the MWC is 4-2 against the WAC with wins against 2 of the 3 marquee teams, Fresno State and Hawai'i.

There is a reason the dominoes are falling in the order they are: ACC raids the Big East, Big East raids USA, USA raids the WAC and MAC, and the WAC is left to raid the Sun Belt.

I wouldn't worry about USA teams leaving in a mass exodus.


Last edited by sbro on Mon Nov 10, 2003 1:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2003 7:49 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 7:21 am
Posts: 748
Location: Midwest
Agreed, sbro...

No matter how you crunch the numbers, MWC has very slight edge--most reporters' views in news stories agree also.

They are looking to see if they can notch that edge up just a little more...

Should be interesting to see how the MWC move(s) pan out...

8-)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2003 7:57 pm 
Offline
Sophomore
Sophomore
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2003 8:07 pm
Posts: 73
La. Tech., N. Texas, UTEP and New Mexico St. are better Co. than Tulsa, Rice and SMU. New Mexico St. almost makes up for Tulsa in BB and Rice in Baseball. Any 3 of the four are certainly better in FB.
I am obviously assuming the WAC will pick up N. Texas. In fact I am uncertain why the WAC waits on the Fate of La. Tech. before offering to N. Texas. Regardless of what happens the WAC needs N. Texas, unless they are looking at N. Arizona, Idaho or possibly the pair of Montana’s.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:20 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:01 pm
Posts: 129
Location: Moscow, Idaho
Here is what I think happens:

MWC invites TCU and Boise State.
CUSA invites LaTech
WAC invites Idaho

Does anyone else see a problem with having an EASTERN division of the WESTERN Athletic Conference? I think the reason that Rice, Tulsa and SMU left so easily is because they realized that the WAC isn't a good regional fit. Shouldn't the focus of this realignment be on becoming more regional? Wasn't that the whole idea of the Mountain West conference forming? To become more regional and not across five time zones? I think that LA Tech is on an island. Inviting N. Texas would only provide a small bridge. I can see some Texas schools as being western as Texas is right in the middle (UTEP is the western most school in Texas). But Louisiana? Louisiana schools in the Western Athletic conference?

I think that the commissioners should look at geography first. Or, as with some conferences that are spread out, rename the conference (Conference USA, Mid-American). I think that the focus of realignment should be to get better conferences, but also to get better by being more regional. I hate being in the Sun Belt. We play Arksansas State, two Louisiana schools, Middle Tennessee, etc. These are schools that are very far away from little old Moscow. I think that if you are in a regional conference (if we played Utah State, New Mexico State, Nevada-Reno, UTEP, etc.) we would draw better crowds.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:32 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:01 pm
Posts: 129
Location: Moscow, Idaho
One more thing to add about Conference USA. It isn't going anywhere. I think that they will be a strong conference with new additions Rice, Tulsa, SMU, Marshall, etc. They will keep their TV contract, bowl bids and remain a very good conference. I think TCU will need to hear some pretty good guarantees from MWC before they leave CUSA. If they stay, then Conference USA becomes much better.

The conferences that are on shaky ground are the WAC(if the MWC goes shopping and takes a few, namely Boise State & Fresno State) and the Sun Belt (lost New Mexico State and Utah State, probably Idaho and North Texas if both BSU and FSU leave the WAC). Sun Belt would need a few schools to join (Florida Intl, FAMU, Western Kentuck upgrade to 1-A football) in order to meet 8 full members. WAC and SunBelt are on the shakiest ground and they know it. SunBelt commish Wright Waters is a great guy and should be able to make it through all this. Karl Benson has been reacting for a while (since the defection of 8 schools in 98 for MWC and 3 schools for CUSA), but has been quick to react (inviting NMSU and USU without formal notices from Rice, Tulsa and SMU). He will make sure that the WAC survives. My guess is that the Sun Belt will have the hardest time because of the lack of teams in the region and because of losing teams to the WAC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2003 4:16 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2003 12:34 pm
Posts: 151
Location: Lafayette, LA

Quote:
La. Tech., N. Texas, UTEP and New Mexico St. are better Co. than Tulsa, Rice and SMU. New Mexico St. almost makes up for Tulsa in BB and Rice in Baseball. Any 3 of the four are certainly better in FB.


CUSA is more stable because Fresno State, Hawaii, Nevada, and Boise State are all trying to get into the Mountain West. If I understand correctly, if the WAC loses one more team, you will not have six league members in the conference five years to keep your automatic bids for basketball, baseball, etc.

It's also less expensive to compete in CUSA.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 137 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group