Please, no mas!

This guy is NUTS.

Gah... I like the conference the way it is.

Even with a smaller division footprint I don't see many benefits unless the $$$ is substantially more. Also, the media-rights deal will be dependent on the success and marketability of the CUSA teams. Without success, the deal will be straight garbage.

I say no to ULL just because I don't want to have to a name war raging on the board 24/7. My vote is stay at 14 unless there is a guarantee that we will all get more TV revenue than the current contract.

(04-08-2013 01:21 PM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  I say no to ULL just because I don't want to have to a name war raging on the board 24/7. My vote is stay at 14 unless there is a guarantee that we will all get more TV revenue than the current contract.

The name war is a two way street. Let their fans on a friggin message board call themselves whatever they want.

If Tech fans would stop the "FIFY" comments when they use "Louisiana" or "UL"(and stop using USL) and the Cajun fans would stop using "FIFY" comments when Tech fans use "ULL" or "Lafayette" it would kill about 90% of the name debate.

I nearly always refer to them simply as the Cajuns and it avoids all that. For the life of me I cannot understand what either side thinks will be accomplished on a message board. It's stupid to attempt to correct a fan in how they refer to their own school and it's stupid to attempt to correct a fan of an opposing school that refers to you by your schools full name.

"ULL" "UL" "Louisiana" "Louisiana Lafayette" "Louisiana's Ragin Cajuns" "The Cajuns" whatever the hell you want to call them, they've had some of the better football and attendance of the whole of the Sun Belt and CUSA over the past two seasons and their tailgating is top notch. I'm not exactly pulling for them, but if we end up adding two more, I'm having trouble coming up with two additions I'd say are definitely better. I'd say Ohio would be my top choice, but I think they're unlikely to bite and that still doesn't exactly fix the divisional layout. If we add two to the west and Louisiana isn't one of them, I think we've made a mistake.

I think too many of us are looking at the TV dollars in a vacuum. You have to compare the potential loss of TV revenue at 16 with the potential travel savings. This would be especially important for the Olympic sports. The impact on the entire budget might make it feasible, or desirable to expand.

can we play 1 or 2 years in the current form before we decide it doesn't work?

(04-08-2013 01:20 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(04-08-2013 01:18 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  Georgia State is likely to be a candidate at some point, no need to rush though, who else is going to take them? The AAC?

The American desires all dem big markets! Look at all the cash the American is rolling in because of the markets they already have!

Thanks for no-voting that billion dollar TV contract...we REALLY appreciate your help.

The #1 choice for the next addition to CUSA should be South Alabama. They are a perfect fit for CUSA.

1. They bring a bowl game with them (the godaddy.com bowl).
2. They are a sleeping giant (using that term loosely) in football. Look at the recruiting base they have. the Florida panhandle, Alabama and Miss which are all recruiting hotbeds. They've already landed seven 3 stars in the last 2 classes and they've yet to play 1 down in football.
3. Their market size is pretty good. In Mobile alone they have 200,000.
4. Their media market is ranked #60 in the US...just behind markets like #47 Jacksonville, Fl, #48 Memphis, TN, #49 Austin, TX, #50 Louisville, Ky #53 New Orleans, #59 Knoxville, TN. And just ahead of markets like #61 Tulsa Oklahoma, #63 Lexington, KY, #70 Green Bay, WI.
5. The are right in the middle of CUSA and bring additional rivalry to the table with UAB and SoMiss.

USA should be the next team in line.

(04-08-2013 12:30 PM)gostAte870 Wrote:  C-USA Weighing 16 Team Model

-------------------------------------------------

What they are saying is Banowski is bracing for the loss of at least two more current c-belt teams.

(04-08-2013 01:39 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(04-08-2013 12:30 PM)gostAte870 Wrote:  C-USA Weighing 16 Team Model

-------------------------------------------------

What they are saying is Banowski is bracing for the loss of at least two more current c-belt teams.

Any idea which two?

I hope the two are USM and Rice!

(04-08-2013 12:35 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  Nothing against ULL but do we need two teams in Louisiana? From a "basketball" and market perspective I'd like to give Missouri St. a hard look first, especially if we're looking at Ark St.

ULL travels well and is centrally located between USM rice and la tech.

(04-08-2013 12:43 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  I'd rather add two west teams because that will put UAB and SoMiss in the EAST.

We don't want to be in the East, thanks.

(04-08-2013 02:00 PM)Angry Eagle Wrote:  

(04-08-2013 12:43 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  I'd rather add two west teams because that will put UAB and SoMiss in the EAST.

We don't want to be in the East, thanks.

"We"?

Is that the consensus among USM fans?

(04-08-2013 02:00 PM)Angry Eagle Wrote:  

(04-08-2013 12:43 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  I'd rather add two west teams because that will put UAB and SoMiss in the EAST.

We don't want to be in the East, thanks.

You won't be even if we add two.

(04-08-2013 12:36 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  In that scenario stAte is a shoe in; who is #16?

UTEP fans are against NMSU
La Tech fans are against UL
Many people are against another Texas school - Texas State

Ohio PLEASE!

Look at this from a voting block perspective. If the 4 Texas teams say that they will block every vote unless they get at least one of the teams they want in, it will happen. 10/14 is not enough to bring in a new member, so something will have to give. Like all expansion, this is as much about politics and voting blocks as $$ and geography.

I have a feeling that this is not going to be a slam dunk assumed adds of ASU and ULL like people keep saying. Don't count out TSU, due to having the support of at least 2 if not all 4 of the Texas teams. Not sure that UTEP wants NMSU, so they may be dead before that idea ever starts...

Please, no more...

Seems TXST has the support of Hickey at UTSA. Not sure where the other Texas schools or LA Tech stand. Would hope for a decent relationship with LA Tech after the WAC. Be nice to be in a conference with Rice so I'd have games to go to here in Houston.

(04-08-2013 01:14 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(04-08-2013 01:10 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  Georgia State makes no sense if the purpose of expansion is to balance divisions. UAB would still have to go west in 2015. It does fill a huge whole in the conference map, though.

Not to mention that at a little under 150 miles, UAB and Georgia State would be two of the closest schools geographically(third behind FAU/FIU, MT/WKU?) and yet would be in separate divisions.

Well Southern Miss and Tulane are 90 miles apart and CUSA, in it's infinite wisdom, saw fit to split them up.

(04-08-2013 01:09 PM)OwlFamily Wrote:  Ok,

This will blow your mind but I think CUSA is going full bore to be SEC lite. IF GSU and stAte get added, you are only missing South Carolina and Missourri. Other then that the two confreces are in the EXACT same footprint.

SEC On the Left
CUSA On the Right

Bama - UAB
Auburn-

Ark- None (possible stAte)

Florida- FAU,FIU

Georgia- None (Possible GSU)

Kentucky-WKU

LSU-LATech

OleMiss-USM
Miss State

Mizzou-None

SC-None

Tenn- MTSU
Vandy

TxAM- UNT, UTSA,Rice,Utep