(04-10-2013 11:01 AM)jay2000 Wrote:  

(04-09-2013 04:58 PM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  Let's see, since 2003 La Tech is 59-69 for a winning percent of 46.09%. 1-1 in Bowls.

Arkansas State over that same time frame, 59-62 for a winning percent of 48.76%. 1-2 in Bowls

Louisiana went 56-64 for a 46.66%. 2-0 in Bowls

Please keep opening your mouth and spreading delusional opinions of programs that you are fearful of.

2 points:

1. Keep in mind Tech was playing a lot of games @Fresno, @Nevada, @Boise, @Hawaii. Those are usually really good teams and really tough trips to make. ULL and ASU were playing teams like FAU and FIU that were newbie programs, plus UNT, MTSU, Troy, and ULM. Some of those were good and some not so good at times, but travel wasn't bad.

2. Of course Tech doesn't want either school in because of recruiting head to head. You wouldn't want us in if it was the other way around. That's just how it goes. Tulane didn't want Tech, Tech doesn't want ULL. ULL would fight hard to keep Tech out if the roles were reversed.

Wrong, we want to be in a conference with our longest standing rival. Over 80 games played between the two schools.

Look at the recruiting rankings, we are doing fine.

(04-10-2013 07:58 AM)bladhmadh Wrote:  

(04-10-2013 07:41 AM)David Krysakowski Wrote:  Don't go to 16 schools! That will ensure a breakup will be coming soon.

Actually going to 16 would stabilize the conference.

That's actually not good in my opinion. Some things don't need to be stabilized. Some things need to go the Ol' Yeller route.

(04-10-2013 10:10 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-10-2013 07:58 AM)bladhmadh Wrote:  

(04-10-2013 07:41 AM)David Krysakowski Wrote:  Don't go to 16 schools! That will ensure a breakup will be coming soon.

Actually going to 16 would stabilize the conference.

Only for a few years, then the West Division will break off with their own revived SWC. It'll happen as you'll have 2 distinct geographic and culturally different divisions.

Unless, of course, UTEP and three other programs get enough traction to be attractive invites to the MWC.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...evenue-cap

C-USA isn't getting any more than $12 million in playoff money even if we add more teams.
10 team league would get $10 million
11 team league would get $11 million
Any league with 12+ teams gets a maximum of $12 million.

(04-10-2013 01:18 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...evenue-cap

C-USA isn't getting any more than $12 million in playoff money even if we add more teams.
10 team league would get $10 million
11 team league would get $11 million
Any league with 12+ teams gets a maximum of $12 million.

that rule saves the belt and screws CUSA and condemns UAB to the west

(04-10-2013 01:36 PM)bladhmadh Wrote:  that rule saves the belt and screws CUSA and condemns UAB to the west

Not necessarily, as I said in another thread. Playoff revenue is not the only part that affects the bottom line. So, if the move to 14 or 16 for CUSA increases revenue or decreases expenditures in greater amounts than the move dilutes per school playoff money they move is worth it. Otherwise, it is not.

I think non-tangible things like killing the belt are pretty silly.

16 doesn't make C-USA more stable; heck, they can always pull from the sunbelt if they lose teams. That order of things is not changing. Destabilize the sunbelt and where is the farm system? And adding 16 will annoy some c-usa schools, increasing the chances of leaving for lateral leagues or the dreaded "airport meeting".

That said, under the 16 team model, each division individually looks better than the league as a whole. Both are interesting, separate from other other.
Perhaps a bifurcation would be in order.

(04-10-2013 01:42 PM)slappycajun Wrote:  

(04-10-2013 01:36 PM)bladhmadh Wrote:  that rule saves the belt and screws CUSA and condemns UAB to the west

Not necessarily, as I said in another thread. Playoff revenue is not the only part that affects the bottom line. So, if the move to 14 or 16 for CUSA increases revenue or decreases expenditures in greater amounts than the move dilutes per school playoff money they move is worth it. Otherwise, it is not.

I think non-tangible things like killing the belt are pretty silly.

And as I replied in the other thread. The gap created is only $157,000. With the right schools from a geography standpoint, you could save that in travel expenses alone.

Plus, if the added teams help the conference finish higher in the payout rankings, it could be well worth adding a couple of teams.

[/quote]

that rule saves the belt and screws CUSA and condemns UAB to the west
[/quote]

Just curious, why are you so opposed to going west? It seems you would be interested in playing the more Southern schools. Is it because of Florida recruiting? If USM goes west, who do you have history with other than Marshall? I would love to have UAB in the west.

All of the teams we advocated for would be in the east without us.
Increased travel expenses.
Fewer number of visiting fans than if we were in the east.
Fewer feasible road trips for our dedicated fans.

What a mess. And UAB and USM are separated if UAB stays east

East: Marshall, ODU, JMU, Charlotte, WKU, MTSU, FIU, FAU
West: UAB, SoMiss, ArkSt, LaTech, Rice, N Texas, UTEP, UTSA

(04-10-2013 03:45 PM)panama Wrote:  What a mess. And UAB and USM are separated if UAB stays east

Who really cares? If USM wants to keep losing to UAB, just make them permanent cross-division partners.

(04-10-2013 11:10 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  Look at the recruiting rankings, we are doing fine.

247 Sports had ULL ranked high. 247 uses all of the services then comes up with an average. ULL has a big Scout.com site that helps ULL have a higher ranking on Scout, which boosts ULLs ranking on 247. Tech does not have an active Scout site. You can use that to make you feel better all you want.

Recruiting rankings are for the fans. the players look at facilities and conference. 9 times out of 10 the pecking order for recruiting in Louisiana/Mississippi for local talent is 1. LSU/Alabama 2. Any other Top 15 BCS school 3. Miss St/Ole Miss 4. Any other BCS school 5. USM 6. Louisiana Tech 7. Tulane 8. ULL 9. Memphis 10. ULM

Conference has been used against Tech for 12 years. With that negative out of the window, Tech has a much clearer advantage in recruiting. Why would they want ULL to move up the line? Of course Tech would want to keep them out and no matter what you sy, ULL would want Tech out too.

that rule saves the belt and screws CUSA and condemns UAB to the west
[/quote]

Just curious, why are you so opposed to going west? It seems you would be interested in playing the more Southern schools. Is it because of Florida recruiting? If USM goes west, who do you have history with other than Marshall? I would love to have UAB in the west.
[/quote]

UAB is a basketball school first and we have a history with UNCC, WKU, and ODU. I would rather play in CUSA east than move to the AAC. If we are in the west id push for us trashing the conference and starting a new one with ODU, WKU, UNCC, MTSU and whoever we could scrape together for a nine team conference.

(04-10-2013 04:06 PM)jay2000 Wrote:  

(04-10-2013 11:10 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  Look at the recruiting rankings, we are doing fine.

247 Sports had ULL ranked high. 247 uses all of the services then comes up with an average. ULL has a big Scout.com site that helps ULL have a higher ranking on Scout, which boosts ULLs ranking on 247. Tech does not have an active Scout site. You can use that to make you feel better all you want.

Recruiting rankings are for the fans. the players look at facilities and conference. 9 times out of 10 the pecking order for recruiting in Louisiana/Mississippi for local talent is 1. LSU/Alabama 2. Any other Top 15 BCS school 3. Miss St/Ole Miss 4. Any other BCS school 5. USM 6. Louisiana Tech 7. Tulane 8. ULL 9. Memphis 10. ULM

Conference has been used against Tech for 12 years. With that negative out of the window, Tech has a much clearer advantage in recruiting. Why would they want ULL to move up the line? Of course Tech would want to keep them out and no matter what you sy, ULL would want Tech out too.

UL doesn't have a Rivals site like la tech. Spin it as you wish, but the Cajuns out recruited everyone in CUSA aside from Marshall.

(04-10-2013 04:06 PM)jay2000 Wrote:  

(04-10-2013 11:10 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  Look at the recruiting rankings, we are doing fine.

247 Sports had ULL ranked high. 247 uses all of the services then comes up with an average. ULL has a big Scout.com site that helps ULL have a higher ranking on Scout, which boosts ULLs ranking on 247. Tech does not have an active Scout site. You can use that to make you feel better all you want.

Recruiting rankings are for the fans. the players look at facilities and conference. 9 times out of 10 the pecking order for recruiting in Louisiana/Mississippi for local talent is 1. LSU/Alabama 2. Any other Top 15 BCS school 3. Miss St/Ole Miss 4. Any other BCS school 5. USM 6. Louisiana Tech 7. Tulane 8. ULL 9. Memphis 10. ULM

Conference has been used against Tech for 12 years. With that negative out of the window, Tech has a much clearer advantage in recruiting. Why would they want ULL to move up the line? Of course Tech would want to keep them out and no matter what you sy, ULL would want Tech out too.

That pecking order look OK, but you need to move Tulane up. Nobody's picking USM or Tech over Tulane now that they're in a better conference. Seriously... why would they?

(04-10-2013 01:59 PM)BuzDawg73 Wrote:  Just curious, why are you so opposed to going west? It seems you would be interested in playing the more Southern schools. Is it because of Florida recruiting? If USM goes west, who do you have history with other than Marshall? I would love to have UAB in the west.

UAB doesn't recruit the west, they recruit Alabama and the east in Florida, Georgia and the Carolina's.

Also staying in the east means they would be playing Marshall which has become a great two games in basketball every year plus they would renew old Sun Belt rivalries with WKU, ODU and Charlotte

(04-10-2013 04:06 PM)jay2000 Wrote:  

(04-10-2013 11:10 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  Look at the recruiting rankings, we are doing fine.

247 Sports had ULL ranked high. 247 uses all of the services then comes up with an average. ULL has a big Scout.com site that helps ULL have a higher ranking on Scout, which boosts ULLs ranking on 247. Tech does not have an active Scout site. You can use that to make you feel better all you want.

Recruiting rankings are for the fans. the players look at facilities and conference. 9 times out of 10 the pecking order for recruiting in Louisiana/Mississippi for local talent is 1. LSU/Alabama 2. Any other Top 15 BCS school 3. Miss St/Ole Miss 4. Any other BCS school 5. USM 6. Louisiana Tech 7. Tulane 8. ULL 9. Memphis 10. ULM

Conference has been used against Tech for 12 years. With that negative out of the window, Tech has a much clearer advantage in recruiting. Why would they want ULL to move up the line? Of course Tech would want to keep them out and no matter what you sy, ULL would want Tech out too.

This actually is not a very true characterization of Mississippi. In particular, it ignores the makeup of talent in Mississippi. Probably 80% or more of Mississippi's high schools are small, out-of-the-way places that never play the big schools and consequently never get seen on film. For the other 20%, at places like the coast, the three big HSes around Hattiesburg, Jackson, Meridian, Vicksburg, and near Memphis, your characterization is probably pretty accurate. For the rest, their dream is a scholarship from the in-state schools, because they know better than to expect an offer from elsewhere. Even an Alabama or LSU simply doesn't have the resources to scout a place like East Webster HS, which just produced the Thorpe Award winner this year. Even at one of the larger HSes in the state, our star player in HS only had out-of-state offers from Tulane and Tennessee. Tennessee sent a GA to visit...Tulane sent their OC, who happened to be named Rich Rodriguez.

(04-10-2013 04:18 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(04-10-2013 04:06 PM)jay2000 Wrote:  

(04-10-2013 11:10 AM)geauxcajuns Wrote:  Look at the recruiting rankings, we are doing fine.

247 Sports had ULL ranked high. 247 uses all of the services then comes up with an average. ULL has a big Scout.com site that helps ULL have a higher ranking on Scout, which boosts ULLs ranking on 247. Tech does not have an active Scout site. You can use that to make you feel better all you want.

Recruiting rankings are for the fans. the players look at facilities and conference. 9 times out of 10 the pecking order for recruiting in Louisiana/Mississippi for local talent is 1. LSU/Alabama 2. Any other Top 15 BCS school 3. Miss St/Ole Miss 4. Any other BCS school 5. USM 6. Louisiana Tech 7. Tulane 8. ULL 9. Memphis 10. ULM

Conference has been used against Tech for 12 years. With that negative out of the window, Tech has a much clearer advantage in recruiting. Why would they want ULL to move up the line? Of course Tech would want to keep them out and no matter what you sy, ULL would want Tech out too.

That pecking order look OK, but you need to move Tulane up. Nobody's picking USM or Tech over Tulane now that they're in a better conference. Seriously... why would they?

Tulane can not win. The added travel will make that even more impossible. Tech and USM have owned SE Louisiana the last few years. Tulane reclaimed a lot of that area this past year because they had a lot of positive momentum from their coaching hire. If they continue to lose, they will come back down to earth. Just like if USM gets back to winning, they will beat Tulane on a recruit more times than not.

Tech continues to go to New Orleans and over to Houma/ Thibadoux/Morgan City and get top recruits. I don't see that changing.