Conference USA General Realignment Thread

The Bishin Cutter · **Joined:** Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am **Posts:** 540

I don't believe the spin or personal vendettas. LaTech is a natural fit for today's C-USA. Were this the C-USA of Louisville's day, when basketball mattered, it would be a different story, but filling the losses with UCF's, Marshall's, and other football-first schools screams a shift in philosophy. For that matter, let UTEP go back out west, where it historically succeeded, and bring LaTech back east.

This land-grab for any Florida or Texas institution with a pulse is really some of the worst maneuvering I've ever seen in all of college athletics history. The dregs indeed.

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3753

The Bishin Cutter wrote:

I don't believe the spin or personal vendettas. LaTech is a natural fit for today's C-USA. Were this the C-USA of Louisville's day, when basketball mattered, it would be a different story, but filling the losses with UCF's, Marshall's, and other football-first schools screams a shift in philosophy. For that matter, let UTEP go back out west, where it historically succeeded, and bring LaTech back east.

This land-grab for any Florida or Texas institution with a pulse is really some of the worst maneuvering I've ever seen in all of college athletics history. The dregs indeed.

If you were talking about the Sun Belt, I'd agree. But I don't in regards to CUSA. LA Tech adds little. They have a small market, little penetration into any larger markets like New Orleans or any of the LA secondary cities, and no national appeal. They provide no real recruiting benefits either, like adding another Texas or Florida school.

Now, sure, LA Tech could be the #12 school, per reports. But it seems only because the only other options are:
1) FCS upgrade for a school that barely even has football (Charlotte)
2) FCS upgrades like App St, ODU or GA Southern
3) Texas St., when you already have Rice, UTSA, North Texas and UTEP
3) FAU when you already have a school in the same market with FIU

That said, I'd still take a chance on Charlotte for all-sports potential, or take a chance on a football program like App St.

tute79 · **Joined:** Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm **Posts:** 1491

I like the idea of inviting Charlotte (UNC-C) if / when UTEP slides over to the MWC.

I think the MWC is playing this creatively:

They invite USu and SJSU now for all sports. Between MWC, CUSA, and SunBelt, WAC is reduced to a crappy non-FB conference, and Boise St. is forced to re-think their situation
JUST AS the BCS let it be known that there will no longer be BCS AQ's (so mcu of incentive to join BE football is gone).

MWC is at 10/9 with:

Hawai'i (FB only, other in Big West)
SJSU
FSU
UNR
UNLV
USU
Wyoming
CSU
Air Force
UNM

By mid-Summer, Boise St., and SDSU could be re-considering. If they want back, take:
Boise St for all sports (they need to get out of the WAC)
and SDSU for FB only (other sports are now in Big West, and that's not a bad arrangement (same as Hawai'i)).

Then MWC is 12/10.

If they wanted, they could then invite UTEP and Idaho for all sports to get to 14/12.
That may not be a sexy move for some, but it seems to lay out nicely for non-FB travel partners.
SJSU-FSU
UNR-UNLV
Boise St. - Idaho
Utah St. - Wyoming
CSU-Air Force
New Mexico- UTEP

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3753

tute79 wrote:

I like the idea of inviting Charlotte (UNC-C) if / when UTEP slides over to the MWC.

I think the MWC is playing this creatively:

They invite USu and SJSU now for all sports. Between MWC, CUSA, and SunBelt, WAC is reduced to a crappy non-FB conference, and Boise St. is forced to re-think their situation
JUST AS the BCS let it be known that there will no longer be BCS AQ's (so mcu of incentive to join BE football is gone).

MWC is at 10/9 with:

Hawai'i (FB only, other in Big West)
SJSU
FSU
UNR
UNLV
USU
Wyoming
CSU
Air Force
UNM

By mid-Summer, Boise St., and SDSU could be re-considering. If they want back, take:
Boise St for all sports (they need to get out of the WAC)
and SDSU for FB only (other sports are now in Big West, and that's not a bad arrangement (same as Hawai'i)).

Then MWC is 12/10.

If they wanted, they could then invite UTEP and Idaho for all sports to get to 14/12.
That may not be a sexy move for some, but it seems to lay out nicely for non-FB travel partners.
SJSU-FSU
UNR-UNLV
Boise St. - Idaho
Utah St. - Wyoming
CSU-Air Force
New Mexico- UTEP

Based on all the moves of late, I think the UTEP move idea might be dead. Seems like it was only part of a merger, not an alliance.

Because why would Utah St. and SJSU to the MWC be made public BEFORE an internal move with UTEP moving over?
And why would UTSA to CUSA, with North Texas and FIU to CUSA be made public as well?
And LA Tech is supposedly slotted for #12 with Charlotte the only school that might sneak in still...with the "loser" then going to the Sun Belt.

Seems that if UTEP were moving, it would be out there already.

Because what is the MWC supposed to do?

If UTEP were brought over, they'd be #11 for football. So who is #12? It's not No. Texas or UTSA since those schools are going to CUSA.

Do they stay at 11? Likely not, UTEP, San Jose and Utah St. don't bring nearly enough to justify being at 11 total.

So if UTEP were moving over, does that mean the MWC selects on of the ONLY 3 available options: Idaho, NMSU or Texas St.?

Idaho: brings little to the table
NSMU: UTEP has refused to be in a conference with them...doubtful they'd willingly leave CUSA for the MWC if it meant NMSU would have to join
Texas St.: so if UTEP holds with their "no NMSU" stance, it means only Texas St. is an option for MWC (or Idaho).

So does the MWC get UTEP to join with the promise of Texas St. in San Marcos being #12? Doubt TSU has that clout.

That said, I get the benefit of splitting the state of Texas between both conferences:
CUSA: Rice, UTSA, No. Texas
MWC: UTEP, Texas St.

But does Texas St. have what it takes to be in the MWC? Not so sure.

tute79 · **Joined:** Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm **Posts:** 1491

Now don't you be dissin' the Idaho Vandals !
They won the Humanitarian Bowl the year before last !

Maybe the MWC fears acts of vandalism....

The Bishin Cutter · **Joined:** Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am **Posts:** 540

The only reason why UTEP doesn't go to the MWC is because they turn it down. And if they turn it down, it's because they're still bitter about being left out of the MWC after the WAC-16 blunder. And, yes, they have no problem stating that on their official athletics page.

Quote:

...Please recall that UTEP was left behind when the 16-team Western Athletic Conference split apart more than a decade ago. At that time, many of those schools formed the Mountain West Conference. However UTEP was not invited to be a part of it.

You don't put that out there unless you want it known.

So, if they aren't going, and USU and SJSU are, I imagine UTEP told the MWC where they could stick it, or the feeling is still mutual over in the MWC head office. Personally, I always thought it was a mistake for the conference to "betray" UTEP and not get on the wagon for Tulsa instead of TCU and UNLV given TCU wasn't a longterm investment and UNLV is probably one of the worst football programs of the modern era, as well as one of the most corrupt programs. If UTEP isn't "sliding over," it will be a shame, as well as a missed opportunity for the MWC to get a consistent program.

I imagine Charlotte will be a C-USA member again. It could work out for them...I know they felt like they dropped off when they went to the A-10 (SLU felt the same), and were willing to put together a football program to help get basketball "righted" (although, to be honest, if Charlotte thinks C-USA is a hoops upgrade from the 3-4 invite/year A-10, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell them for a nickel). So, let them live and learn. Should be interesting how they progress when ECU and App State are already better, yet well behind the ACC'ers.

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3753

The Bishin Cutter wrote:

The only reason why UTEP doesn't go to the MWC is because they turn it down. And if they turn it down, it's because they're still bitter about being left out of the MWC after the WAC-16 blunder. And, yes, they have no problem stating that on their official athletics page.

Quote:

...Please recall that UTEP was left behind when the 16-team Western Athletic Conference split apart more than a decade ago. At that time, many of those schools formed the Mountain West Conference. However UTEP was not invited to be a part of it.

You don't put that out there unless you want it known.

So, if they aren't going, and USU and SJSU are, I imagine UTEP told the MWC where they could stick it, or the feeling is still mutual over in the MWC head office. Personally, I always thought it was a mistake for the conference to "betray" UTEP and not get on the wagon for Tulsa instead of TCU and UNLV given TCU wasn't a longterm investment and UNLV is probably one of the worst football programs of the modern era, as well as one of the most corrupt programs. If UTEP isn't "sliding over," it will be a shame, as well as a missed opportunity for the MWC to get a consistent program.

I imagine Charlotte will be a C-USA member again. It could work out for them...I know they felt like they dropped off when they went to the A-10 (SLU felt the same), and were willing to put together a football program to help get basketball "righted" (although, to be honest, if Charlotte thinks C-USA is a hoops upgrade from the 3-4 invite/year A-10, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell them for a nickel). So, let them live and learn. Should be interesting how they progress when ECU and App State are already better, yet well behind the ACC'ers.

You have, HAVE, to factor in the politics though. If UTEP were going to leave CUSA for the MWC, it would HAVE to be because CUSA has agreed to the move. How on earth are CUSA and MWC supposed to work together in a football alliance if one conference is poaching schools from the other...for a football alliance that will be under the same business umbrella. That's like the people in the Sprite department poaching a key employee from the Coke department...when both companies work under the Coke parent company.

I love the idea of UTEP in the MWC. But it ONLY happens if the MWC FIRST asks CUSA if they can have them and CUSA agrees. If the MWC tries to go behind CUSA's back, the alliance could be over. And lets face it, the MWC needs the alliance more than CUSA does since CUSA has a better deal now, has tons of options for schools to add in solid markets. Meanwhile, the MWC has only the WAC to poach. Think the new MWC 9/10 will be getting a huge TV deal on their own? And what if they lose another school to the Big East? Does NMSU or Idaho as the only option blow you over?

Can it happen? Yes, Utep could join. Will it? Only if CUSA gives UTEP it's blessing...which it might. But don't you think there would be some sort of news about that PRIOR to CUSA adding 4 schools and the MWC adding 2?

JPSchmack · **Joined:** Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm **Posts:** 851

With all of this chaos ensuing, the expectation is conferences like the MWC, CUSA, and WAC should just "take the next best ___" they need to get their membership up, and that's determined essentially by recent standings.

But that's foolhardy. A school shouldn't be there just "to make 12."

La Tech really doesn't do much for C-USA. C-USA already has a school in the biggest city in Louisiana (Tulane).
Louisiana is definitely solid recruiting territory, but it's not like other schools are suddenly going to win recruiting battles because of La Tech. LSU is always going to win, and the leftovers will go to either the best schools that offer, or if they wanna stay home, ULL, ULM or LaTech. Adding La Tech doens't help CUSA, it helps La Tech.

The questions for C-USA is
"If Charlotte was FBS now, where would they be on the list of expansion candidates?"

If they #1, then go ahead and invite them for all sports now and let them join FBS whenever they are ready.
If they are #2-3, add two and wait to go to 12 when Charlotte is ready.
If they are #5, go ahead to 12 teams now and consider 14 if Charlotte is worth it later.

You're not expanding based solely on how good teams are NOW. You're looking at potential. Like San Antonio. A huge, underserved Texas market. In a bigger conference, UTSA could be a strong program. That's a great add. (Like USF and UCF for the Big East. Look at USF's growth!)

Charlotte is VERY similar to UTSA in the sense that they are a big market with real growth potential. they're just further behind in the time line.

In my opinion, they should be next on C-USA target list. Which means not going to 12 until they are ready, or inviting them and waiting on them to step up to FBS.

JPSchmack · **Joined:** Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm **Posts:** 851

Quinn wrote:

You have, HAVE, to factor in the politics though. If UTEP were going to leave CUSA for the MWC, it would HAVE to be because CUSA has agreed to the move. How on earth are CUSA and MWC supposed to work together in a football alliance if one conference is poaching schools from the other...for a football alliance that will be under the same business umbrella. That's like the people in the Sprite department poaching a key employee from the Coke department...when both companies work under the Coke parent company.

I love the idea of UTEP in the MWC. But it ONLY happens if the MWC FIRST asks CUSA if they can have them and CUSA agrees. If the MWC tries to go behind CUSA's back, the alliance could be over. And lets face it, the MWC needs the alliance more than CUSA does since CUSA has a better deal now, has tons of options for schools to add in solid markets. Meanwhile, the MWC has only the WAC to poach. Think the new MWC 9/10 will be getting a huge TV deal on their own? And what if they lose another school to the Big East? Does NMSU or Idaho as the only option blow you over?

I'd agree, but view it from UTEP's perspective. It's totally UTEP's call on which side to be with.

Their primary reasons for joining C-USA was the Houston/Dallas ties. With SMU and Houston joining the Big East, that changes.

Under the merger situation, UTEP isn't going to join the MWC against their wishes. It's not like C-USA could have trade them to the MWC for future considerations.

Under the seperate conferences with a working relationship, both parties are going to leave it to UTEP to decide.
Everyone knows the MWC will take them and C-USA won't stop them. MWC won't approach, CUSA won't prevent.

If they want to go, UTEP will approach C-USA first then the MWC, and then go.

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:56 pm

Quinn wrote:

The Bishin Cutter wrote:

The only reason why UTEP doesn't go to the MWC is because they turn it down. And if they turn it down, it's because they're still bitter about being left out of the MWC after the WAC-16 blunder. And, yes, they have no problem stating that on their official athletics page.

Quote:

...Please recall that UTEP was left behind when the 16-team Western Athletic Conference split apart more than a decade ago. At that time, many of those schools formed the Mountain West Conference. However UTEP was not invited to be a part of it.

You don't put that out there unless you want it known.

So, if they aren't going, and USU and SJSU are, I imagine UTEP told the MWC where they could stick it, or the feeling is still mutual over in the MWC head office. Personally, I always thought it was a mistake for the conference to "betray" UTEP and not get on the wagon for Tulsa instead of TCU and UNLV given TCU wasn't a longterm investment and UNLV is probably one of the worst football programs of the modern era, as well as one of the most corrupt programs. If UTEP isn't "sliding over," it will be a shame, as well as a missed opportunity for the MWC to get a consistent program.

I imagine Charlotte will be a C-USA member again. It could work out for them...I know they felt like they dropped off when they went to the A-10 (SLU felt the same), and were willing to put together a football program to help get basketball "righted" (although, to be honest, if Charlotte thinks C-USA is a hoops upgrade from the 3-4 invite/year A-10, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell them for a nickel). So, let them live and learn. Should be interesting how they progress when ECU and App State are already better, yet well behind the ACC'ers.

You have, HAVE, to factor in the politics though. If UTEP were going to leave CUSA for the MWC, it would HAVE to be because CUSA has agreed to the move. How on earth are CUSA and MWC supposed to work together in a football alliance if one conference is poaching schools from the other...for a football alliance that will be under the same business umbrella. That's like the people in the Sprite department poaching a key employee from the Coke department...when both companies work under the Coke parent company.

I love the idea of UTEP in the MWC. But it ONLY happens if the MWC FIRST asks CUSA if they can have them and CUSA agrees. If the MWC tries to go behind CUSA's back, the alliance could be over. And lets face it, the MWC needs the alliance more than CUSA does since CUSA has a better deal now, has tons of options for schools to add in solid markets. Meanwhile, the MWC has only the WAC to poach. Think the new MWC 9/10 will be getting a huge TV deal on their own? And what if they lose another school to the Big East? Does NMSU or Idaho as the only option blow you over?

Can it happen? Yes, Utep could join. Will it? Only if CUSA gives UTEP it's blessing...which it might. But don't you think there would be some sort of news about that PRIOR to CUSA adding 4 schools and the MWC adding 2?

I think CUSA missed the boat by not looking at MTSU instead of La Tech.

I Don't think UTEP is coming west but I disagree that that would be the first announcement in the alliance, I think it would be the last. You get your 22 or 24. Then you breakdown where the 11/11 or 12/12 go.

I'm not sure that we'll be doing anything as an alliance w/ this move. CUSA shut us out of Tx and they went to full 12 to cutting out an actual conf title game where the winner could face a real school in a bowl.

If I was the MWC I'd call Texas St. right now and tell them the 10th spot is theirs when AFA goes to the BE. At worst Tx St. is NMSU or Idaho, more than likely they'll be better. If CUSA wanted they could cock block us on that too and go to 14 w/ Charlotte(who they do want down the road) and take Texas St. Some f*cking partnership. MWC should hope they can be on the better end in fb and much better in basketball to convince UTEP and 1 other Tx school to come to the MWC down the road which would tell CUSA the "partnership" is over.

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3753

JPSchmack wrote:

Quinn wrote:

You have, HAVE, to factor in the politics though. If UTEP were going to leave CUSA for the MWC, it would HAVE to be because CUSA has agreed to the move. How on earth are CUSA and MWC supposed to work together in a football alliance if one conference is poaching schools from the other...for a football alliance that will be under the same business umbrella. That's like the people in the Sprite department poaching a key employee from the Coke department...when both companies work under the Coke parent company.

I love the idea of UTEP in the MWC. But it ONLY happens if the MWC FIRST asks CUSA if they can have them and CUSA agrees. If the MWC tries to go behind CUSA's back, the alliance could be over. And lets face it, the MWC needs the alliance more than CUSA does since CUSA has a better deal now, has tons of options for schools to add in solid markets. Meanwhile, the MWC has only the WAC to poach. Think the new MWC 9/10 will be getting a huge TV deal on their own? And what if they lose another school to the Big East? Does NMSU or Idaho as the only option blow you over?

I'd agree, but view it from UTEP's perspective. It's totally UTEP's call on which side to be with.

Their primary reasons for joining C-USA was the Houston/Dallas ties. With SMU and Houston joining the Big East, that changes.

Under the merger situation, UTEP isn't going to join the MWC against their wishes. It's not like C-USA could have trade them to the MWC for future considerations.

Under the seperate conferences with a working relationship, both parties are going to leave it to UTEP to decide.
Everyone knows the MWC will take them and C-USA won't stop them. MWC won't approach, CUSA won't prevent.

If they want to go, UTEP will approach C-USA first then the MWC, and then go.

I agree. But I am just surprised that if UTEP had any chance of joining the MWC, it would have happened already. Just seems odd to add 3 schools to get to 11, with the 12th all but locked up (LA Tech) to get to 12...only to then look a bit foolish to have one of their own members announce they were leaving to the same conference they are forming an alliance with for football. The timing is just odd, that's my point.

We want UTEP to join the MWC. But what if the school doesn't want to give up it's Texas connections to Houston (Rice), Dallas (North Texas) and San Antonio (UTSA). We don't know.

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3753

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

Quinn wrote:

The Bishin Cutter wrote:

The only reason why UTEP doesn't go to the MWC is because they turn it down. And if they turn it down, it's because they're still bitter about being left out of the MWC after the WAC-16 blunder. And, yes, they have no problem stating that on their official athletics page.

Quote:

...Please recall that UTEP was left behind when the 16-team Western Athletic Conference split apart more than a decade ago. At that time, many of those schools formed the Mountain West Conference. However UTEP was not invited to be a part of it.

You don't put that out there unless you want it known.

So, if they aren't going, and USU and SJSU are, I imagine UTEP told the MWC where they could stick it, or the feeling is still mutual over in the MWC head office. Personally, I always thought it was a mistake for the conference to "betray" UTEP and not get on the wagon for Tulsa instead of TCU and UNLV given TCU wasn't a longterm investment and UNLV is probably one of the worst football programs of the modern era, as well as one of the most corrupt programs. If UTEP isn't "sliding over," it will be a shame, as well as a missed opportunity for the MWC to get a consistent program.

I imagine Charlotte will be a C-USA member again. It could work out for them...I know they felt like they dropped off when they went to the A-10 (SLU felt the same), and were willing to put together a football program to help get basketball "righted" (although, to be honest, if Charlotte thinks C-USA is a hoops upgrade from the 3-4 invite/year A-10, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell them for a nickel). So, let them live and learn. Should be interesting how they progress when ECU and App State are already better, yet well behind the ACC'ers.

You have, HAVE, to factor in the politics though. If UTEP were going to leave CUSA for the MWC, it would HAVE to be because CUSA has agreed to the move. How on earth are CUSA and MWC supposed to work together in a football alliance if one conference is poaching schools from the other...for a football alliance that will be under the same business umbrella. That's like the people in the Sprite department poaching a key employee from the Coke department...when both companies work under the Coke parent company.

I love the idea of UTEP in the MWC. But it ONLY happens if the MWC FIRST asks CUSA if they can have them and CUSA agrees. If the MWC tries to go behind CUSA's back, the alliance could be over. And lets face it, the MWC needs the alliance more than CUSA does since CUSA has a better deal now, has tons of options for schools to add in solid markets. Meanwhile, the MWC has only the WAC to poach. Think the new MWC 9/10 will be getting a huge TV deal on their own? And what if they lose another school to the Big East? Does NMSU or Idaho as the only option blow you over?

Can it happen? Yes, Utep could join. Will it? Only if CUSA gives UTEP it's blessing...which it might. But don't you think there would be some sort of news about that PRIOR to CUSA adding 4 schools and the MWC adding 2?

I think CUSA missed the boat by not looking at MTSU instead of La Tech.

I Don't think UTEP is coming west but I disagree that that would be the first announcement in the alliance, I think it would be the last. You get your 22 or 24. Then you breakdown where the 11/11 or 12/12 go.

I'm not sure that we'll be doing anything as an alliance w/ this move. CUSA shut us out of Tx and they went to full 12 to cutting out an actual conf title game where the winner could face a real school in a bowl.

If I was the MWC I'd call Texas St. right now and tell them the 10th spot is theirs when AFA goes to the BE. At worst Tx St. is NMSU or Idaho, more than likely they'll be better. If CUSA wanted they could cock block us on that too and go to 14 w/ Charlotte(who they do want down the road) and take Texas St. Some f*cking partnership. MWC should hope they can be on the better end in fb and much better in basketball to convince UTEP and 1 other Tx school to come to the MWC down the road which would tell CUSA the "partnership" is over.

So are you saying you've relaxed your position that if at 11/11, the conferences would need to petition the NCAA to allow 11 school "divisions" with the winners playing in a "Championship" despite each school not playing all members of it's division?

I wouldn't say UTEP should be the 1st move nor the last. But it seems odd that CUSA would all but announce expansion to 12, the MWC with 2 more additions, only to have one school move, creating the need for CUSA to add a new 12th school.

I'd love the 11/11 scenario...I think it's the #1 option out there...I've always favored an 8/8, 9/9, 10/10 or 11/11. But at 11/11, it means having to change the NCAA rules in order for it to work. Let's hope that is the case.

Fresno St. Alum · **Posted:** Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:18 pm

Quinn wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

Quinn wrote:

The Bishin Cutter wrote:

The only reason why UTEP doesn't go to the MWC is because they turn it down. And if they turn it down, it's because they're still bitter about being left out of the MWC after the WAC-16 blunder. And, yes, they have no problem stating that on their official athletics page.

Quote:

...Please recall that UTEP was left behind when the 16-team Western Athletic Conference split apart more than a decade ago. At that time, many of those schools formed the Mountain West Conference. However UTEP was not invited to be a part of it.

You don't put that out there unless you want it known.

So, if they aren't going, and USU and SJSU are, I imagine UTEP told the MWC where they could stick it, or the feeling is still mutual over in the MWC head office. Personally, I always thought it was a mistake for the conference to "betray" UTEP and not get on the wagon for Tulsa instead of TCU and UNLV given TCU wasn't a longterm investment and UNLV is probably one of the worst football programs of the modern era, as well as one of the most corrupt programs. If UTEP isn't "sliding over," it will be a shame, as well as a missed opportunity for the MWC to get a consistent program.

I imagine Charlotte will be a C-USA member again. It could work out for them...I know they felt like they dropped off when they went to the A-10 (SLU felt the same), and were willing to put together a football program to help get basketball "righted" (although, to be honest, if Charlotte thinks C-USA is a hoops upgrade from the 3-4 invite/year A-10, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell them for a nickel). So, let them live and learn. Should be interesting how they progress when ECU and App State are already better, yet well behind the ACC'ers.

You have, HAVE, to factor in the politics though. If UTEP were going to leave CUSA for the MWC, it would HAVE to be because CUSA has agreed to the move. How on earth are CUSA and MWC supposed to work together in a football alliance if one conference is poaching schools from the other...for a football alliance that will be under the same business umbrella. That's like the people in the Sprite department poaching a key employee from the Coke department...when both companies work under the Coke parent company.

I love the idea of UTEP in the MWC. But it ONLY happens if the MWC FIRST asks CUSA if they can have them and CUSA agrees. If the MWC tries to go behind CUSA's back, the alliance could be over. And lets face it, the MWC needs the alliance more than CUSA does since CUSA has a better deal now, has tons of options for schools to add in solid markets. Meanwhile, the MWC has only the WAC to poach. Think the new MWC 9/10 will be getting a huge TV deal on their own? And what if they lose another school to the Big East? Does NMSU or Idaho as the only option blow you over?

Can it happen? Yes, Utep could join. Will it? Only if CUSA gives UTEP it's blessing...which it might. But don't you think there would be some sort of news about that PRIOR to CUSA adding 4 schools and the MWC adding 2?

I think CUSA missed the boat by not looking at MTSU instead of La Tech.

I Don't think UTEP is coming west but I disagree that that would be the first announcement in the alliance, I think it would be the last. You get your 22 or 24. Then you breakdown where the 11/11 or 12/12 go.

I'm not sure that we'll be doing anything as an alliance w/ this move. CUSA shut us out of Tx and they went to full 12 to cutting out an actual conf title game where the winner could face a real school in a bowl.

If I was the MWC I'd call Texas St. right now and tell them the 10th spot is theirs when AFA goes to the BE. At worst Tx St. is NMSU or Idaho, more than likely they'll be better. If CUSA wanted they could cock block us on that too and go to 14 w/ Charlotte(who they do want down the road) and take Texas St. Some f*cking partnership. MWC should hope they can be on the better end in fb and much better in basketball to convince UTEP and 1 other Tx school to come to the MWC down the road which would tell CUSA the "partnership" is over.

So are you saying you've relaxed your position that if at 11/11, the conferences would need to petition the NCAA to allow 11 school "divisions" with the winners playing in a "Championship" despite each school not playing all members of it's division?

I wouldn't say UTEP should be the 1st move nor the last. But it seems odd that CUSA would all but announce expansion to 12, the MWC with 2 more additions, only to have one school move, creating the need for CUSA to add a new 12th school.

I'd love the 11/11 scenario...I think it's the #1 option out there...I've always favored an 8/8, 9/9, 10/10 or 11/11. But at 11/11, it means having to change the NCAA rules in order for it to work. Let's hope that is the case.

No I think I started off by saying I don't think UTEP is coming west but if they were it would be after they decide how many they add. If 24 then we would hear Charlotte and ODU are coming before UTEP shifting west.

My stance is CUSA 1 up'd us by landing all of Tx and it looks like our alliance will be some non conf games, maybe a bowl. I would have rather played cutthroat winner take all against them for UTEP, Tulsa, Rice, UNT or UTSA.

Quinn · **Joined:** Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am **Posts:** 3753

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

Quinn wrote:

Fresno St. Alum wrote:

Quinn wrote:

The Bishin Cutter wrote:

The only reason why UTEP doesn't go to the MWC is because they turn it down. And if they turn it down, it's because they're still bitter about being left out of the MWC after the WAC-16 blunder. And, yes, they have no problem stating that on their official athletics page.

Quote:

...Please recall that UTEP was left behind when the 16-team Western Athletic Conference split apart more than a decade ago. At that time, many of those schools formed the Mountain West Conference. However UTEP was not invited to be a part of it.

You don't put that out there unless you want it known.

So, if they aren't going, and USU and SJSU are, I imagine UTEP told the MWC where they could stick it, or the feeling is still mutual over in the MWC head office. Personally, I always thought it was a mistake for the conference to "betray" UTEP and not get on the wagon for Tulsa instead of TCU and UNLV given TCU wasn't a longterm investment and UNLV is probably one of the worst football programs of the modern era, as well as one of the most corrupt programs. If UTEP isn't "sliding over," it will be a shame, as well as a missed opportunity for the MWC to get a consistent program.

I imagine Charlotte will be a C-USA member again. It could work out for them...I know they felt like they dropped off when they went to the A-10 (SLU felt the same), and were willing to put together a football program to help get basketball "righted" (although, to be honest, if Charlotte thinks C-USA is a hoops upgrade from the 3-4 invite/year A-10, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell them for a nickel). So, let them live and learn. Should be interesting how they progress when ECU and App State are already better, yet well behind the ACC'ers.

You have, HAVE, to factor in the politics though. If UTEP were going to leave CUSA for the MWC, it would HAVE to be because CUSA has agreed to the move. How on earth are CUSA and MWC supposed to work together in a football alliance if one conference is poaching schools from the other...for a football alliance that will be under the same business umbrella. That's like the people in the Sprite department poaching a key employee from the Coke department...when both companies work under the Coke parent company.

I love the idea of UTEP in the MWC. But it ONLY happens if the MWC FIRST asks CUSA if they can have them and CUSA agrees. If the MWC tries to go behind CUSA's back, the alliance could be over. And lets face it, the MWC needs the alliance more than CUSA does since CUSA has a better deal now, has tons of options for schools to add in solid markets. Meanwhile, the MWC has only the WAC to poach. Think the new MWC 9/10 will be getting a huge TV deal on their own? And what if they lose another school to the Big East? Does NMSU or Idaho as the only option blow you over?

Can it happen? Yes, Utep could join. Will it? Only if CUSA gives UTEP it's blessing...which it might. But don't you think there would be some sort of news about that PRIOR to CUSA adding 4 schools and the MWC adding 2?

I think CUSA missed the boat by not looking at MTSU instead of La Tech.

I Don't think UTEP is coming west but I disagree that that would be the first announcement in the alliance, I think it would be the last. You get your 22 or 24. Then you breakdown where the 11/11 or 12/12 go.

I'm not sure that we'll be doing anything as an alliance w/ this move. CUSA shut us out of Tx and they went to full 12 to cutting out an actual conf title game where the winner could face a real school in a bowl.

If I was the MWC I'd call Texas St. right now and tell them the 10th spot is theirs when AFA goes to the BE. At worst Tx St. is NMSU or Idaho, more than likely they'll be better. If CUSA wanted they could cock block us on that too and go to 14 w/ Charlotte(who they do want down the road) and take Texas St. Some f*cking partnership. MWC should hope they can be on the better end in fb and much better in basketball to convince UTEP and 1 other Tx school to come to the MWC down the road which would tell CUSA the "partnership" is over.

So are you saying you've relaxed your position that if at 11/11, the conferences would need to petition the NCAA to allow 11 school "divisions" with the winners playing in a "Championship" despite each school not playing all members of it's division?

I wouldn't say UTEP should be the 1st move nor the last. But it seems odd that CUSA would all but announce expansion to 12, the MWC with 2 more additions, only to have one school move, creating the need for CUSA to add a new 12th school.

I'd love the 11/11 scenario...I think it's the #1 option out there...I've always favored an 8/8, 9/9, 10/10 or 11/11. But at 11/11, it means having to change the NCAA rules in order for it to work. Let's hope that is the case.

No I think I started off by saying I don't think UTEP is coming west but if they were it would be after they decide how many they add. If 24 then we would hear Charlotte and ODU are coming before UTEP shifting west.

My stance is CUSA 1 up'd us by landing all of Tx and it looks like our alliance will be some non conf games, maybe a bowl. I would have rather played cutthroat winner take all against them for UTEP, Tulsa, Rice, UNT or UTSA.

While I know people would hate the lowered competition level, I admit, part of me would love to see:

CUSA adds 4 to get to 12 (UTSA, No. Texas, FIU, Charlotte)
Sun Belt replaces their lost 2 with LA Tech and Texas St. and grabs a 12th football school like App St
MWC adds Utah St. and SJSU to get to 10 football and adds NMSU and Idaho for 12.

MWC has a championship game, CUSA a championship game, with the winners playing in a bowl. Maybe the lure of a #1 vs #1 is enough to get a higher quality bowl partner in Texas, Phoenix, New Orleans.

I know Idaho and NSMU add little, but at least nobody is left behind and both schools fit the regional mold. Hell, maybe even throw them a bone with FB only membership like Hawaii has so MWC is a 12 school football conference, 9 for other sports.

The Bishin Cutter · **Joined:** Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am **Posts:** 540

Quinn, I believe that the MWC programs have the bigger and better upsides being flagship or land-grant universities, and that sort of administration operating in a fashion that's more desirable than public city schools or satellite campus programs. You see this more in the MWC than you do C-USA, and I believe it's why the private schools wanted to do business with them those years back in Super-WAC. Standards? Integrity? I think this still counts for something, and C-USA is losing it faster than the MWC.

You know, I think it will hurt C-USA immensely were it to even lose Tulsa, Tulane, or Rice. Regardless if these schools are small-time players, it hurts the image and reputation of the conference that "good schools" would not want to be a part of them. I think you're seeing this right now in Tulsa's fanbase. It may just be business for C-USA to backfill its Texas losses with UTSA and UNT, but to a school like that, they see that and not a plan to pursue maybe UMass, Delaware, Villanova, JMU...or ANY of the MAC schools as a sign that a conference would rather do business with a television studio or with a marketing report than a collection of universities. I know I would be heading to the door were I a Tulsa fan. Wrong direction, completely wrong.

Conference USA General Realignment Thread

Who is online