Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
HamptonRoads.com: Banowsky states more realignment coming. Confirms CUSA Exit Fee.
Author Message
SMUmustangs Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,186
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 71
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #41
RE: HamptonRoads.com: Banowsky states more realignment coming. Confirms CUSA Exit F
(03-11-2013 11:05 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 10:46 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 10:41 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 10:22 AM)apex_pirate Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 10:16 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  Its worth it for Tulsa apparently, if they do go and I expect they will. But in the world of conference realignment it is a gamble unlike getting an invite to a more secure and stable conference like the ACC or even the MWC.

I agree, even with the conferences you mentioned. However, the MWC is stable because no one wants any of their members. At best, their members are a long shot into a Power 5 conference. That is the only thing that has achieved stability for them. The A12 is unstable because there are quite few members, more than just UCONN and Cincy, that are legitimate contenders to be called up. Almost all of the A12 is in that group. If you are looking to move up, that is the conference to be in. If you are looking not to move down, it is also the conference to be in because Tulsa has no MWC option. Tulsa staying in C-USA 2014 would be a definite move down from C-USA 2012.

Location is why I consider the MWC to be currently stable. But while location helps them now, it isn't going to make them secure forever. Right now Hawaii is getting somewhat of the short end of the stick regarding membership. An article in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser explains the situation. Hawaii also has to subsidize travel for both the leagues it belongs to. Not sure that is a recipe for long term contentment. Some Hawaii fans believe that their future may be in the PAC 12 but that will take time to work out, if ever. There are still attractive schools in the MWC for expansion elsewhere but their location along with a very decent current media deal makes them stable for a while.

http://www.staradvertiser.com/s?action=l...=196672901

MWC does not work for Tulsa. This is not a putdown or flame of MWC, a very good confernece. But Tulsa's audience is in Oklahoma and Texas. THis is where our alumni live, our recruiting base, and very driveable or to fly to. These same conditions do not exist for Tulsa in NM, Colorado, and Wy. TU has scheduled Fresno, NM, and CSU and that's good enough.


What I really find interesting in a potential Tulsa move is it is pretty much a dagger for UTEP ever moving to the MWC. Unless the MWC adds NMSU, which I just don't see happening, Who is the MWC going to add? The long running thought would be that if a nuclear scenario ever happened for the western division of the CUSA, Tulsa and UTEP could easily move over to the MWC. Now what?

I don't see UTSA or UNT moving without a huge pay bump, just because neither are a fan of the extensive western travel and due to where their alumni bases are. Would TxSt and UTEP be enough to "move the needle" as far as the media deal goes? I am not sure that there is any real viable "option" left that would make the MWC a potential escape plan for UTEP.

Strange how all of these moves are interrelated and how some schools have seen a dramatic shift in power and position in all of this.

i think UTEP's best hope of moving to te MWC outside of adding New Mexico State is for Hawaii to go independent.
(This post was last modified: 03-11-2013 11:48 AM by SMUmustangs.)
03-11-2013 11:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GO Coogs GO!!! Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,847
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 59
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Banowsky states more realignment coming. Confirms CUSA Exit Fee.
(03-11-2013 11:38 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  SW: Tulsa, UNT, UTSA, UTEP, Rice, LA Tech.
GULF: SMU, HOuston, Tulane, Memphis, FIU, FAU
SE: UCF, USF, UAB, UMT, two others
NE: Temple, ODU, Marshall, ECU, Charlotte, Navy?

No thank you I think we will pass on your disaster.

You think the MWC won't take us? Fine but we shall see. I don't want to go there either, but would rather be Boise's "B" than play in that hot mess!

The NBE deal is on par (slightly) above the MWC deal so yes we would bring in our share of the loot to cover our expenses.

If you want to stay in the disaster that is CUSA thats fine but why the obsession with trashing us and assumuing we would come back (HUGE ASSUMPTION THERE)?
03-11-2013 11:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tallgrass Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,396
Joined: Nov 2002
Reputation: 91
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Banowsky states more realignment coming. Confirms CUSA Exit Fee.
C
(03-11-2013 11:15 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  
Quote:It is somewhat funny to hear the concerns of the alumni base when I was at Ford last weekend for the Patriot Cup on the 3rd. None are as happy as people here try to spin it

You are absolutely right. I am refusing to say that we moved forward, although playing Connecticut and Cincy in basketball for 2-3 seasons (which is how long the NBE will last) will be nice. SMU fans are not happy at all. However, going to a conference that includes UTSA is not an option, as dropping football would fit our larger academic goals better than aligning with UTSA. Some suggest that Houston and SMU could go to the MWC, but I highly doubt that will happen given that the MWC gave Boise a preferential deal and Boise's president Kustra rubbed UH and SMU presidents Khator and Turner the wrong way.

Callenstang, I appreciate you post and candidness. There surely has to be a better way that how this thing is playing out.

I think for all Texas schools including UTEP and throw in Tulsa, the MWC is not the way to go. THis is not a put down or flame of MWC. But I think the Texas/Tulsa schools are eastern oriented, both in where they draw students, place students in jobs, where the alumni live, where the tv audience is, and so easy to travel.
03-11-2013 11:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tallgrass Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,396
Joined: Nov 2002
Reputation: 91
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Banowsky states more realignment coming. Confirms CUSA Exit Fee.
(03-11-2013 11:42 AM)AtlantaEagle Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 11:30 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 11:15 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  
Quote:It is somewhat funny to hear the concerns of the alumni base when I was at Ford last weekend for the Patriot Cup on the 3rd. None are as happy as people here try to spin it

You are absolutely right. I am refusing to say that we moved forward, although playing Connecticut and Cincy in basketball for 2-3 seasons (which is how long the NBE will last) will be nice. SMU fans are not happy at all. However, going to a conference that includes UTSA is not an option, as dropping football would fit our larger academic goals better than aligning with UTSA. Some suggest that Houston and SMU could go to the MWC, but I highly doubt that will happen given that the MWC gave Boise a preferential deal and Boise's president Kustra rubbed UH and SMU presidents Khator and Turner the wrong way.

SMU is pretty much stuck. There is just no real "good" option and there is no putting the genie back in the bottle at this point. Without massive upheaval SMU is headed to the BE and I am more worried about all sports not football than football itself. A 6/6 split for football is acceptable for travel, but the other sports are going to see a noticeable increase in both overall travel and "bad" weather travel that plays havoc to student athletes.

The best "compromise" for all parties involved would see UTSA, UTEP, Tulsa and TSU move the the MWC, UH, SMU, and Tulane come back to the CUSA. The only way you see that is if there is a nuclear option for the ACC and mass defections happen. Then UConn, Cinci, Temple, USF, UCF, Memphis, and ECU goes to what is left of the ACC.

It would double up CUSA in DFW and Houston, but so be it. It would pretty much sell both metro areas as "CUSA" towns for media purposes and still give some geographic sense to it all. I just don't see it.

SWC anyone? Some enterprising folks could get thing going...
One thing I do think we can agree on, is Banowsky's failure to maintain any semblance of a conference. He's re-active, rather than proactive.
As long as he has his office in Texas & makes his 900K per year, he's good.
Had Mike Slive still been the Commissioner, what a different history for C-USA.

Mike Slive is leading SEC's efforts not to play an NonAQs in bowls. Mike SLive is looking after Mike SLive. I guess that is true of every commissioner. Therefore, your comments about CUSA and Banowsky not being proactive enough, that I agree with.
03-11-2013 11:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ECUPirated Offline
NAPALMINATOR
*

Posts: 4,079
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 187
I Root For: American Rising
Location: G-VEGAS
Post: #45
RE: Banowsky states more realignment coming.
(03-11-2013 08:56 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  So, it appears TU will pay about $8.5M in exit and entry fees and then, after UConn, Cincy and Navy leave following B1G expansion, essentially end up where TU started in the first place. This is a business absurdity. It will take 15 years for TU to pay all those fees, given the low $1.8M Nbe/A12 tv contract.

ODU WILL BE PART OF CONFERENCE USA TV PACKAGE IN 2013
HamptonRoads.com, Feb. 27, 2013, By Harry Minium

"Banowsky said he sees no end to the conference alignment that has cost his league six members in two years."

"Big East members will make about $1.8M per year in TV revenue--less than what officials had hoped for. That's about $500,000 more per year than CUSA schools, but Tulsa must pay a $7M exit fee to leave CUSA and a $2.5M entrance fee to join the Big East."

A few thoughts here.

1. Banowsky hasn't done much to stop anything (not saying he could have stopped it from happening), but when you have the attitude of "we wish our former schools well and we understand that we're an in between conference for schools looking to move up", and you sound off like you're promoting schools to move on then you are in essence freely bending over and taking it up the aZZ without a fight.

2. If Tulsa is next up, IMHO, they will take it and the entrance fee into the new conference will be waived or massively reduced.

3. As for the exit fees from CUSA if in fact they are that high, I can only say that the Tulsa admin has made it crystal clear that they want to be associated with privates like SMU and Tulane, so paying what it takes to make that happen is a given.

4. It's not about what you may have to spend in the short term more than it's what you hope to gain further down the road. IMHO, the cost of all this moving around is no different than money schools are spending to renovate/improve/build new facilities. The schools have to take the plunge whether they know where things will end up or not or they can continue to sit idly by and do nothing which ensures they'll get left behind when the dust settles.
(This post was last modified: 03-11-2013 12:01 PM by ECUPirated.)
03-11-2013 11:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #46
RE: Banowsky states more realignment coming. Confirms CUSA Exit Fee.
(03-11-2013 11:15 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  Some suggest that Houston and SMU could go to the MWC, but I highly doubt that will happen given that the MWC gave Boise a preferential deal and Boise's president Kustra rubbed UH and SMU presidents Khator and Turner the wrong way.

Doesn't Kustra rub everyone the wrong way?

The bigger issues are that (a) The MWC doesn't seem inclined to bulk up to 14 or 16 schools at this point, and (b) For Houston and SMU, the geographic benefits of the America X conference over the MWC are substantial, and the MWC would have to be a far better deal in order to make it worth it for Houston and SMU (just like the Big East wasn't worth it for Boise unless the money was far better than in the MWC).
03-11-2013 12:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NBPirate Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,704
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 188
I Root For: Georgetown
Location: The Hilltop
Post: #47
RE: HamptonRoads.com:
(03-11-2013 11:43 AM)VA49er Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 11:19 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  CUSA is a dumpster fire... it has been since 2004, and with the recent expansion, a new heap of trash was piled on to keep it lit. No one is going back to that.

So, since the A12 or whatever it's called is basically the same at CUSA2.0 you are basically saying you are now back in that ol' dumpster fire. At least you get a little more $ to be in the dumpster fire this time.

the A12 is a lot closer to CUSA 1.0...... which was a pretty good league
03-11-2013 12:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AntiG Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,396
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 40
I Root For: Rutgers
Location: NYC
Post: #48
RE: HamptonRoads.com: Banowsky states more realignment coming. Confirms CUSA Exit F
(03-11-2013 10:25 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  CUSA was and remains a great confernce.
LOL no. It was a solid, underappreciated one until it got appreciated (BE took most of their best programs). CUSA now is just Sunbelt plus a couple leftovers. Its a garbage conference that is now clearly inferior to the nBE aka CUSA V2.0 so obviously is the better choice by far for Tulsa.
03-11-2013 12:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CalallenStang Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,056
Joined: Nov 2006
Reputation: 446
I Root For: SMU Mustangs
Location: The Midwest
Post: #49
RE: Banowsky states more realignment coming. Confirms CUSA Exit Fee.
(03-11-2013 11:52 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  C
(03-11-2013 11:15 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  
Quote:It is somewhat funny to hear the concerns of the alumni base when I was at Ford last weekend for the Patriot Cup on the 3rd. None are as happy as people here try to spin it

You are absolutely right. I am refusing to say that we moved forward, although playing Connecticut and Cincy in basketball for 2-3 seasons (which is how long the NBE will last) will be nice. SMU fans are not happy at all. However, going to a conference that includes UTSA is not an option, as dropping football would fit our larger academic goals better than aligning with UTSA. Some suggest that Houston and SMU could go to the MWC, but I highly doubt that will happen given that the MWC gave Boise a preferential deal and Boise's president Kustra rubbed UH and SMU presidents Khator and Turner the wrong way.

Callenstang, I appreciate you post and candidness. There surely has to be a better way that how this thing is playing out.

I think for all Texas schools including UTEP and throw in Tulsa, the MWC is not the way to go. THis is not a put down or flame of MWC. But I think the Texas/Tulsa schools are eastern oriented, both in where they draw students, place students in jobs, where the alumni live, where the tv audience is, and so easy to travel.

Absolutely. The only thing that the MWC offers SMU that the To Be Named Conference does not is the opportunity to play games in southern California (a region from which SMU draws many students and where SMU has one of its largest concentrations of alumni). That's why SMU had hoped to develop a western wing of the NBE to include SDSU, but that just didn't work out. In the balance of things, it's better for SMU and the other Texas schools (and Tulsa) to pursue more of an eastern alignment.
03-11-2013 12:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AntiG Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,396
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 40
I Root For: Rutgers
Location: NYC
Post: #50
RE: Banowsky states more realignment coming. Confirms CUSA Exit Fee.
(03-11-2013 11:38 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 11:30 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 11:15 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  
Quote:It is somewhat funny to hear the concerns of the alumni base when I was at Ford last weekend for the Patriot Cup on the 3rd. None are as happy as people here try to spin it

You are absolutely right. I am refusing to say that we moved forward, although playing Connecticut and Cincy in basketball for 2-3 seasons (which is how long the NBE will last) will be nice. SMU fans are not happy at all. However, going to a conference that includes UTSA is not an option, as dropping football would fit our larger academic goals better than aligning with UTSA. Some suggest that Houston and SMU could go to the MWC, but I highly doubt that will happen given that the MWC gave Boise a preferential deal and Boise's president Kustra rubbed UH and SMU presidents Khator and Turner the wrong way.

SMU is pretty much stuck. There is just no real "good" option and there is no putting the genie back in the bottle at this point. Without massive upheaval SMU is headed to the BE and I am more worried about all sports not football than football itself. A 6/6 split for football is acceptable for travel, but the other sports are going to see a noticeable increase in both overall travel and "bad" weather travel that plays havoc to student athletes.

The best "compromise" for all parties involved would see UTSA, UTEP, Tulsa and TSU move the the MWC, UH, SMU, and Tulane come back to the CUSA. The only way you see that is if there is a nuclear option for the ACC and mass defections happen. Then UConn, Cinci, Temple, USF, UCF, Memphis, and ECU goes to what is left of the ACC.

It would double up CUSA in DFW and Houston, but so be it. It would pretty much sell both metro areas as "CUSA" towns for media purposes and still give some geographic sense to it all. I just don't see it.

Logic and sanity are out the window. Egos prevail. But I think a CUSA-24 is the best solution. TO make it work, split the 4 Florida schools int0 two separate divions, UCF and USF together in one division and FAU/FIU in another division. Ditto for the Texas schools. The four division would be Southwest, Gulf, Southeast, and northeast. I assume Cincy and UConn will be in ACC and maybe UCF too. But anyway, something like this...

SW: Tulsa, UNT, UTSA, UTEP, Rice, LA Tech.
GULF: SMU, HOuston, Tulane, Memphis, FIU, FAU
SE: UCF, USF, UAB, UMT, two others
NE: Temple, ODU, Marshall, ECU, Charlotte, Navy?

Laughable. Not only does that make no sense in terms of where the power and money goes, splitting a contract 24 ways where there are zero national powers in the two primary sports means no financial success. If/when UConn and Cincy defect to the ACC, the nBE will simply keep taking from CUSA (Tulsa, USM, ODU, Charlotte, LA Tech, Rice being the targets) and probably at least attempt at adding a few MAC teams (likely UMass, Buffalo, N. Illinois, Ohio being the targets); and in turn CUSA will either add a few SunBelt teams, or just work out a merger with them. nBE has no reason to merge with the CUSA, nor does CUSA have ANY ability to acquire nBE. The money and power is top to bottom, with nBE still easily above CUSA.
03-11-2013 12:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gray Avenger Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,451
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 744
I Root For: MEMPHIS
Location: Memphis
Post: #51
RE: HamptonRoads.com: Banowsky states more realignment coming. Confirms CUSA Exit F
(03-11-2013 10:41 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  Location is why I consider the MWC to be currently stable.

They are stable for much the same reason that the MAC is. Thsy don't have any schools that a "Power 4.5" conference wants.
(This post was last modified: 03-11-2013 12:17 PM by Gray Avenger.)
03-11-2013 12:17 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
billings Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,316
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation: 44
I Root For: Wyo / Mont St.
Location: Billings, Montana
Post: #52
RE: HamptonRoads.com: Banowsky states more realignment coming. Confirms CUSA Exit F
(03-11-2013 12:17 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 10:41 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  Location is why I consider the MWC to be currently stable.

They are stable for much the same reason that the MAC is. Thsy don't have any schools that a "Power 4.5" conference wants.


Please BIG 12 was very interested in Air Force but Air force turned them down and Hawaii has low level talks with the PAC. It appears that only 2 or so BE teams interest the Big 5 as well. ACC may only invite because they have to and not because they want to. Nobody left in the BE helps any conference's TV deal and they are not wanted either unless they have to be invited. Same is true for MWC except for Boise and Air Force. Hawaii has some unique recruiting grounds and TV time slots that the PAC likes. BE and MWC are about the same in TV value for a reason. Neither has much left that the top conferences want
(This post was last modified: 03-11-2013 12:30 PM by billings.)
03-11-2013 12:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
laxtonto Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,212
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 20
I Root For: LAX
Location:
Post: #53
RE: Banowsky states more realignment coming. Confirms CUSA Exit Fee.
(03-11-2013 11:45 AM)GO Coogs GO!!! Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 11:30 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  The only way you see that is if there is a nuclear option for the ACC and mass defections happen. Then UConn, Cinci, Temple, USF, UCF, Memphis, and ECU goes to what is left of the ACC.

Even in a gutted ACC they still have the east coast covered. We would have just as much a shot at the ACC as you would being a new market and good programs.

I will admit down this year in fb and a dispointment in mens bb.

So nice of you to relegate us to the craptastic CUSA!!!

We are NEVER going back there how can I spell it out more?

We would go to the MWC before that happened.

You are drinking WAY too much Kool-Aid if you think that the ACC would not factor in the fact that SMU, Tulane and UH would be all be geographic outliers and ding you all for it.

The ACC has and will be a basketball first conference centered around the east coast. The real difference is that the ACC has enough schools within geographic proximity that if a raid happens they can fill locally (unlike the BE) and has been proactive enough to fill to 14 schools that even in the event of a massive raid there is enough of a core to not have to make decisions dictated by survival.

There is no way UH gets added solo due to geography. So at a minimum its UH and SMU or Tulane. How do you sell both schools over a single school in the footprint? If you sell the ACC on 2 geographic outliers, how do you align divisions? That has been a huge point of contention in the ACC and would be pivotal in remaking the ACC. There are tons of questions that UH and SMU and Tulane really do not provide a great solution for.

I think you are taking your acceptance into the BE to mean that you are on par with the rest of the BE members for a potential ACC spot, when in the pecking order of expansion, there are many better fits for the ACC than UH or SMU or Tulane at this point. It is what is and the bluebloods of the ACC are not going to tap a geographic outlier in state that is not part of their current footprint at the expense of missing out on schools in FL or a basketball brand in Memphis or any of the old guard of the BE. The biggest argument would be ECU vs UH, but it depends on how many NC schools are left and if they have room for 1 or 2 schools at the time.

As far as the MWC, that "plan" is not as much of a slam dunk as you keep thinking it is. How are you going to convince the MWC to expand? How are you going to convince the front range schools to let Boise move to the west division so you get added? Who are you going to bring with you that the media members approve of and that the MWC teams will accept? If you don't add $$, then the MWC is not moving. That is the sad state of conference realignment and a point people need to put WAY more weight in.

No school that has left the CUSA has a slam dunk spot in any other conference, outside of coming back to the CUSA or going to the nBe (or A12 or whatever they are calling it now). It is best to realize that now and be prepared for the worst than to dismiss the possible and be crushed when the improbable does not come to fruition.
03-11-2013 12:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wilkie01 Offline
Cards Prognosticater
Jersey Retired

Posts: 26,753
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 1072
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Planet Red
Post: #54
RE: HamptonRoads.com: Banowsky states .
(03-11-2013 08:56 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  So, it appears TU will pay about $8.5M in exit and entry fees and then, after UConn, Cincy and Navy leave following B1G expansion, essentially end up where TU started in the first place. This is a business absurdity. It will take 15 years for TU to pay all those fees, given the low $1.8M Nbe/A12 tv contract.

ODU WILL BE PART OF CONFERENCE USA TV PACKAGE IN 2013
HamptonRoads.com, Feb. 27, 2013, By Harry Minium

"Banowsky said he sees no end to the conference alignment that has cost his league six members in two years."

"Big East members will make about $1.8M per year in TV revenue--less than what officials had hoped for. That's about $500,000 more per year than CUSA schools, but Tulsa must pay a $7M exit fee to leave CUSA and a $2.5M entrance fee to join the Big East."

[Image: 31EHqZpy5iL._SL500_SS500_.jpg]
03-11-2013 12:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hilltop75 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 844
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation: 68
I Root For: WKU
Location: Buford, Georgia
Post: #55
RE: Banowsky states more realignment coming. Confirms CUSA Exit Fee.
[quote='CalallenStang' pid='9075621' dateline='1363018501']
[quote]

SW: Tulsa, UNT, UTSA, UTEP, Rice, LA Tech.
GULF: SMU, HOuston, Tulane, Memphis, FIU, FAU
SE: UCF, USF, UAB, UMT, two others
NE: Temple, ODU, Marshall, ECU, Charlotte, Navy?
[/quote]

You can forget all attempts to make any conferences that make
any sense. If all of the non-bcs leagues would have took all their schools together then split them by regions that would have been great....

Big problem is ego's. Each level of school feels that they are better than another school..... So no way in your plan would UCF and USF ever want FIU and FAU in the same conference and that logic
goes for about every school out there.

Thats why the picking off of schools will continue the way it has been
one school at a time.
03-11-2013 12:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
apex_pirate Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,820
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 95
I Root For: East Carolina
Location:
Post: #56
RE: HamptonRoads.com: Banowsky states more realignment coming. Confirms CUSA Exit F
(03-11-2013 12:20 PM)billings Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 12:17 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 10:41 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  Location is why I consider the MWC to be currently stable.

They are stable for much the same reason that the MAC is. Thsy don't have any schools that a "Power 4.5" conference wants.


Please BIG 12 was very interested in Air Force but Air force turned them down and Hawaii has low level talks with the PAC. It appears that only 2 or so BE teams interest the Big 5 as well. ACC may only invite because they have to and not because they want to. Nobody left in the BE helps any conference's TV deal and they are not wanted either unless they have to be invited. Same is true for MWC except for Boise and Air Force. Hawaii has some unique recruiting grounds and TV time slots that the PAC likes. BE and MWC are about the same in TV value for a reason. Neither has much left that the top conferences want

I think Air Force was only considered because BYU was in the picture and it would have helped in many ways. Without BYU, Air Force is not in the picture. Hawaii? If Hawaii is getting slighted by the MWC, why in the world would the PAC-12 want them? They don't need Hawaii to market to Asia. They do a great job of that already. Hawaii to the PAC is like saying ECU to the SEC. Just not going to happen.

I might rub you wrong when I say IMO that the A12 is arguably a much better conference from top to bottom...but I agree that the TV value is dictated by much of what your last two sentences say.
03-11-2013 01:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
apex_pirate Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,820
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 95
I Root For: East Carolina
Location:
Post: #57
RE: Banowsky states more realignment coming. Confirms CUSA Exit Fee.
(03-11-2013 11:30 AM)laxtonto Wrote:  The only way you see that is if there is a nuclear option for the ACC and mass defections happen. Then UConn, Cinci, Temple, USF, UCF, Memphis, and ECU goes to what is left of the ACC.

And as remote as it might be, there is at least a chance something like that could happen on the East Coast. No chance of that happening out West where MWC schools would be picked up. That was one of the points I was trying to make.
(This post was last modified: 03-11-2013 01:14 PM by apex_pirate.)
03-11-2013 01:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LSUtah Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,139
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 50
I Root For: LSU
Location: Salt Lake City
Post: #58
RE: Banowsky states more realignment coming. Confirms CUSA Exit Fee.
(03-11-2013 10:00 AM)4x4hokies Wrote:  Why would CUSA have a 7 million dollar exit fee?

Exactly. Does anyone think that would hold water?
03-11-2013 01:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LSUtah Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,139
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 50
I Root For: LSU
Location: Salt Lake City
Post: #59
RE: HamptonRoads.com: Banowsky states more realignment coming. Confirms CUSA Exit F
(03-11-2013 01:09 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 12:20 PM)billings Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 12:17 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 10:41 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  Location is why I consider the MWC to be currently stable.

They are stable for much the same reason that the MAC is. Thsy don't have any schools that a "Power 4.5" conference wants.


Please BIG 12 was very interested in Air Force but Air force turned them down and Hawaii has low level talks with the PAC. It appears that only 2 or so BE teams interest the Big 5 as well. ACC may only invite because they have to and not because they want to. Nobody left in the BE helps any conference's TV deal and they are not wanted either unless they have to be invited. Same is true for MWC except for Boise and Air Force. Hawaii has some unique recruiting grounds and TV time slots that the PAC likes. BE and MWC are about the same in TV value for a reason. Neither has much left that the top conferences want

I think Air Force was only considered because BYU was in the picture and it would have helped in many ways. Without BYU, Air Force is not in the picture. Hawaii? If Hawaii is getting slighted by the MWC, why in the world would the PAC-12 want them? They don't need Hawaii to market to Asia. They do a great job of that already. Hawaii to the PAC is like saying ECU to the SEC. Just not going to happen.

I might rub you wrong when I say IMO that the A12 is arguably a much better conference from top to bottom...but I agree that the TV value is dictated by much of what your last two sentences say.

I don't think it will realistically happen either (in the next 4-6 years), however there are advantages to Hawaii in the PAC that cannot be overlooked (i.e. Asian market bridge and additional game flexbility by playing in Hawaii). If Hawaii invests heavily in their facilities and academics, there could be a mathematical chance.
(This post was last modified: 03-11-2013 01:38 PM by LSUtah.)
03-11-2013 01:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #60
RE: HamptonRoads.com: Banowsky states more realignment coming. Confirms CUSA Exit F
(03-11-2013 01:37 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 01:09 PM)apex_pirate Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 12:20 PM)billings Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 12:17 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 10:41 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  Location is why I consider the MWC to be currently stable.

They are stable for much the same reason that the MAC is. Thsy don't have any schools that a "Power 4.5" conference wants.


Please BIG 12 was very interested in Air Force but Air force turned them down and Hawaii has low level talks with the PAC. It appears that only 2 or so BE teams interest the Big 5 as well. ACC may only invite because they have to and not because they want to. Nobody left in the BE helps any conference's TV deal and they are not wanted either unless they have to be invited. Same is true for MWC except for Boise and Air Force. Hawaii has some unique recruiting grounds and TV time slots that the PAC likes. BE and MWC are about the same in TV value for a reason. Neither has much left that the top conferences want

I think Air Force was only considered because BYU was in the picture and it would have helped in many ways. Without BYU, Air Force is not in the picture. Hawaii? If Hawaii is getting slighted by the MWC, why in the world would the PAC-12 want them? They don't need Hawaii to market to Asia. They do a great job of that already. Hawaii to the PAC is like saying ECU to the SEC. Just not going to happen.

I might rub you wrong when I say IMO that the A12 is arguably a much better conference from top to bottom...but I agree that the TV value is dictated by much of what your last two sentences say.

I don't think it will realistically happen either (in the next 4-6 years), however there are advantages to Hawaii in the PAC that cannot be overlooked (i.e. Asian market bridge and additional game flexbility by playing in Hawaii). If Hawaii invests heavily in their facilities and academics, there could be a mathematical chance.

Even if Hawaii was just a few minutes away from California instead of a 2500-mile airline flight from LAX, it would still be a state that has only 1.3 million people. New Mexico has 700,000 more people. The county containing Las Vegas (Clark County) has 600,000 more residents than all of Hawaii.

The "mathematical" problem is that any new school would have to add enormous value to warrant bringing them into a conference where the per-school TV revenue alone exceeds $20 million/school/year. UNLV is closer than any other school in the current Pac footprint to getting there, but they probably need to add another million people to their local population and improve their academic reputation to at least the level of Arizona State in order to be a serious candidate, and that's a 20-year project.
03-11-2013 02:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.