(04-08-2013 02:03 PM)laxtonto Wrote:  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...

First step is agreeing to go to 16 and that probably isn't happening unless Marshall, ODU, Charlotte, FIU, FAU, MTSU, WKU demand UAB be with them and UAB demands they be with those schools. If that happens you are only three votes short of expanding to 16. My guess is of those 8 the only ones who aren't guaranteed to be clamoring for it are FIU and FAU simply because they might not care.

After that...
My money says UNT wants two more in the west.
La.Tech probably wants UAB in the west so they are probably a no.
Rice probably doesn't want to go to UAB and is a Yes depending on the school.
UTEP and UTSA? got me.

(04-08-2013 03:05 PM)RowdyRoost Wrote:  

(04-08-2013 02:01 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(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?

Yes. It's a consensus.

Don't worry guys. I called Judy up and she talked to Briton. He told her he'd be more than happy to put SoMiss in the East Division just to make her happy.

(04-08-2013 03:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-08-2013 02:03 PM)laxtonto Wrote:  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...

First step is agreeing to go to 16 and that probably isn't happening unless Marshall, ODU, Charlotte, FIU, FAU, MTSU, WKU demand UAB be with them and UAB demands they be with those schools. If that happens you are only three votes short of expanding to 16. My guess is of those 8 the only ones who aren't guaranteed to be clamoring for it are FIU and FAU simply because they might not care.

After that...
My money says UNT wants two more in the west.
La.Tech probably wants UAB in the west so they are probably a no.
Rice probably doesn't want to go to UAB and is a Yes depending on the school.
UTEP and UTSA? got me.

UTEP & UTSA are probably more hesitant to want to go to UAB every other year than Rice

(04-08-2013 03:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-08-2013 02:03 PM)laxtonto Wrote:  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...

First step is agreeing to go to 16 and that probably isn't happening unless Marshall, ODU, Charlotte, FIU, FAU, MTSU, WKU demand UAB be with them and UAB demands they be with those schools. If that happens you are only three votes short of expanding to 16. My guess is of those 8 the only ones who aren't guaranteed to be clamoring for it are FIU and FAU simply because they might not care.

After that...
My money says UNT wants two more in the west.
La.Tech probably wants UAB in the west so they are probably a no.
Rice probably doesn't want to go to UAB and is a Yes depending on the school.
UTEP and UTSA? got me.

Why would La Tech want UAB in the west?

(04-08-2013 03:09 PM)mufanatehc Wrote:  

(04-08-2013 03:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-08-2013 02:03 PM)laxtonto Wrote:  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...

First step is agreeing to go to 16 and that probably isn't happening unless Marshall, ODU, Charlotte, FIU, FAU, MTSU, WKU demand UAB be with them and UAB demands they be with those schools. If that happens you are only three votes short of expanding to 16. My guess is of those 8 the only ones who aren't guaranteed to be clamoring for it are FIU and FAU simply because they might not care.

After that...
My money says UNT wants two more in the west.
La.Tech probably wants UAB in the west so they are probably a no.
Rice probably doesn't want to go to UAB and is a Yes depending on the school.
UTEP and UTSA? got me.

UTEP & UTSA are probably more hesitant to want to go to UAB every other year than Rice

UTEP is flying for every sport. Birmingham is served by SW Airlines so they can get some competive rates. Not sure when SW is coming into Memphis.

(04-08-2013 03:10 PM)RowdyRoost Wrote:  

(04-08-2013 03:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-08-2013 02:03 PM)laxtonto Wrote:  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...

First step is agreeing to go to 16 and that probably isn't happening unless Marshall, ODU, Charlotte, FIU, FAU, MTSU, WKU demand UAB be with them and UAB demands they be with those schools. If that happens you are only three votes short of expanding to 16. My guess is of those 8 the only ones who aren't guaranteed to be clamoring for it are FIU and FAU simply because they might not care.

After that...
My money says UNT wants two more in the west.
La.Tech probably wants UAB in the west so they are probably a no.
Rice probably doesn't want to go to UAB and is a Yes depending on the school.
UTEP and UTSA? got me.

Why would La Tech want UAB in the west?

Most sports can bus straight over on I-20, marketable name. Not in Louisiana, nor a team they already recruit against in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi.

TxSt and ArkSt would seem the best fit to me. As has been mentioned by others, I too think UTSA would love having TxSt. The game this last season was just great fans, great people, and a really fun rivalry. Just good people all around (especially in my section). I believe that game really solidified UTSA's desire to include TxSt as much as possible in the future.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

(04-08-2013 03:17 PM)slow-runner Wrote:  TxSt and ArkSt would seem the best fit to me. As has been mentioned by others, I too think UTSA would love having TxSt. The game this last season was just great fans, great people, and a really fun rivalry. Just good people all around (especially in my section). I believe that game really solidified UTSA's desire to include TxSt as much as possible in the future.

Plus as one poster pointed out on our board having TXST in conference benefits UTSA. Both schools want to play every year but its would use an OOC slot. But if they are in the same conference they still get that game with high attendace and don't fill up OOC.

(04-08-2013 03:28 PM)Beagleagle23 Wrote:  NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Not even if it meant you wouldn't have to play us every year?

(04-08-2013 02:53 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(04-08-2013 02:50 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-08-2013 12:38 PM)Niner National Wrote:  I'm not wild about adding Ark State because they have a pretty poor basketball program and their athletic budget is pretty terrible. They've had a pretty good run lately, but is it sustainable on a shoestring budget?

ASU basketball for two solid decades was in the top third of the nation in attendance then we gave Dickie Nutt (Houston Nutt's brother) a three year extension and the phones rang off the hook from people cancelling their season tickets.

Just now getting rebuilt. We aren't terribly good in basketball right now but over the last two years ASU is 2-2 vs. MTSU, departed Denver (1-0) was the only one with a better record vs MTSU. Swept WKU in the regular season, lost to them in league tourney.

As to budget. We pay Bryan Harsin more than most CUSA schools. We pay John Brady our basketball coach more than most CUSA schools.

We pay our AD less. We pay our SID less. We pay most everyone in athletic administration less. We fund all of our scholarships so our budget shouldn't be a big concern especially given how our budget is reported.

Weren't we Western Division basketball champs this year? Say what you will...but at least its not chopped liver.

163rd overall in the RPI in the 15th ranked conf in the RPI.

For what its worth...

CUSA was 11th ranked conf in a down year overall for hoops.
You would of been above Rice (323), SMU (213), Marshall (207), Tulane (173) and Houston (192)

I'd have no problem going to 16 teams for the right teams. More than likely it would be one team in the West and one team in the East. If it were up to me, I would gauge the interest of Ohio here in the east. Then maybe check with Arkansas State in the west.

C-USA East:

Marshall
Ohio
WKU
MTSU
ODU
Charlotte
FIU
FAU

C-USA West:

Southern Miss
La Tech
UAB
North Texas
UTEP
Arkansas State
UTSA
Rice

(04-08-2013 03:47 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  I'd have no problem going to 16 teams for the right teams. More than likely it would be one team in the West and one team in the East. If it were up to me, I would gauge the interest of Ohio here in the east. Then maybe check with Arkansas State in the west.

If we could pull Ohio from the MAC, that would be my first choice.

(04-08-2013 03:54 PM)EpicNiner Wrote:  

(04-08-2013 03:47 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  I'd have no problem going to 16 teams for the right teams. More than likely it would be one team in the West and one team in the East. If it were up to me, I would gauge the interest of Ohio here in the east. Then maybe check with Arkansas State in the west.

If we could pull Ohio from the MAC, that would be my first choice.

Mine as well.

(04-08-2013 03:47 PM)MUHERD76 Wrote:  I'd have no problem going to 16 teams for the right teams. More than likely it would be one team in the West and one team in the East. If it were up to me, I would gauge the interest of Ohio here in the east. Then maybe check with Arkansas State in the west.

C-USA East:

Marshall
Ohio
WKU
MTSU
ODU
Charlotte
FIU
FAU

C-USA West:

Southern Miss
La Tech
UAB
North Texas
UTEP
Arkansas State
UTSA
Rice

Out of curiosity, why not this?

C-USA East:

Marshall
UAB
WKU
MTSU
ODU
Charlotte
FIU
FAU

C-USA West:

Southern Miss
La Tech
North Texas
UTEP
Arkansas State
UTSA
Rice
TxSt

You get a nice cluster in Alabama, Tennessee, West Virginia, Kentucky, etc. etc.

(Again, just curious)

Wichita State and VCU. #68 and #57 TV markets

Great Basketball.

Could add football in the future or stay put.

They lost several key rivals in all of the expansion drama.

If we go to 16 I think both adds have to come from the west. That is the only move that satisfies most Divisional Issues. I think the major issues are:
1) Everyone east of USM wants access to Florida recruiting,
2) Most eastern schools want to play in Florida every year (F_U's in East Division),
3) UAB wants to maintain annual games with WKU, MTSU, & USM (mutual for all teams listed),
4) one benefit of larger Conference was to be regional divisions (UAB in west blows that),
5) Marshall would like to maintain a rivalry with at least one of the 5 older members (UAB is the natural here),
6) few people want any more FCS move-ups,
ArkState is likely a concensus pick for #15. The problem is #16.
If we add ArkState for 15 full members and established scheduling arrangements with BYU and or Army could we re-balance UAB in East for football? BYU 4 games with West; Army 3 games West/ 1 East?
Crazy idea but our current line-up creates problems in football.

(04-08-2013 04:17 PM)jay2000 Wrote:  Wichita State and VCU. #68 and #57 TV markets

Great Basketball.

Could add football in the future or stay put.

They lost several key rivals in all of the expansion drama.

14/16 or still add two more full members and 16/18?

(04-08-2013 04:17 PM)77Herd11 Wrote:  If we go to 16 I think both adds have to come from the west. That is the only move that satisfies most Divisional Issues. I think the major issues are:
1) Everyone east of USM wants access to Florida recruiting,
2) Most eastern schools want to play in Florida every year (F_U's in East Division),
3) UAB wants to maintain annual games with WKU, MTSU, & USM (mutual for all teams listed),
4) one benefit of larger Conference was to be regional divisions (UAB in west blows that),
5) Marshall would like to maintain a rivalry with at least one of the 5 older members (UAB is the natural here),
6) few people want any more FCS move-ups,
ArkState is likely a concensus pick for #15. The problem is #16.
If we add ArkState for 15 full members and established scheduling arrangements with BYU and or Army could we re-balance UAB in East for football? BYU 4 games with West; Army 3 games West/ 1 East?
Crazy idea but our current line-up creates problems in football.

(04-08-2013 04:17 PM)jay2000 Wrote:  Wichita State and VCU. #68 and #57 TV markets

Great Basketball.

Could add football in the future or stay put.

They lost several key rivals in all of the expansion drama.

This dang tv market crap. Can Arkansas State claim Memphis since we're only 40 minutes from downtown Memphis?