(05-08-2014 06:08 PM)bladhmadh Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 04:47 AM)MUther Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 07:09 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  USM fans could care less.

It's "couldn't care less." How do people get that wrong? You say I couldn't care less because you already care the least amount that is possible or not at all. Saying I could care less could mean that you care the most possible all the way down to just a very little.

Sorry, pet peave over but that **** only makes sense one way and erks the hell out of me.

that's a pet peave for just about everyone on blazertalk.

So BlazerTalk could care less?

(05-08-2014 06:21 PM)WCWarEagles04 Wrote:  

(05-08-2014 06:08 PM)bladhmadh Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 04:47 AM)MUther Wrote:  

(05-02-2014 07:09 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  USM fans could care less.

It's "couldn't care less." How do people get that wrong? You say I couldn't care less because you already care the least amount that is possible or not at all. Saying I could care less could mean that you care the most possible all the way down to just a very little.

Sorry, pet peave over but that **** only makes sense one way and erks the hell out of me.

that's a pet peave for just about everyone on blazertalk.

So BlazerTalk could care less?

Yes, substantially less.

(05-06-2014 07:20 PM)nastybunch Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 04:46 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 08:19 AM)nastybunch Wrote:  You can always tell a young USM fan that doesn't know the history if the USM Tech rivalry. I thought he was taking about Tulane when he said a few fans in the stands. I leaped for joy when I heard Tech was coming in

I'm almost 40 and I don't want to be in a conference with Tech.

Tulane draws remarkably poorly, and has done so since they lost LSU as their rival... but there's more to it than that.

Like I said, you can always tell a youngster.

I'm three years younger than him and VASTLY prefer LaTech to Tulane, because LaTech is, and has been my entire adult life, competitive in football. I remember their wins over Bama and I remember them being a strong independant before joining the WAC. I'd love it if we had gotten in a stronger, better paying conference, but since we have not, I like playing strong schools like LaTech and MTSU (my other favorite new addition).

(05-07-2014 01:17 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  The AAC is CUSA 1.0 minus the baggage that kept CUSA 1.0 from becoming major.

This was true until they added Tulane. They were baggage in football every season except 1997 & 1998.

(05-10-2014 09:58 AM)Luckyshot Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 01:17 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  The AAC is CUSA 1.0 minus the baggage that kept CUSA 1.0 from becoming major.

This was true until they added Tulane. They were baggage in football every season except 1997 & 1998.

2002. 2013.

(05-10-2014 09:58 AM)Luckyshot Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 01:17 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  The AAC is CUSA 1.0 minus the baggage that kept CUSA 1.0 from becoming major.

This was true until they added Tulane. They were baggage in football every season except 1997 & 1998.

While you obviously have a selective memory, no matter. You got your wish. You have a league full of La Techs. Yall should be happy.

(05-10-2014 09:58 AM)Luckyshot Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 01:17 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  The AAC is CUSA 1.0 minus the baggage that kept CUSA 1.0 from becoming major.

This was true until they added Tulane. They were baggage in football every season except 1997 & 1998.

You're focusing more on performance in one particular sport than the conferences (i.e. schools) or TV networks do. The schools care about money and prestige. Tulane exudes "money and prestige". Tech does not.

The TV folks want big city appeal. Again, that isn't Tech. Not even close.

What do fans want: lots of wins? An excited crowd? A chance to go to a top-tier bowl? Lots of little bowls? Easy parking? TV exposure? A chance to affiliate with prestigious schools like Rice, SMU, or Army? A chance to affiliate with historical programs like UH, UTEP, or Louisville?

ADs have their own goals: filling schedules, building professional connections, balancing the budget...

Some of these goals actually conflict with each other. Suppose we got into the SEC. Parking would suddenly become nearly impossible, we'd probably lose a lot of games at first, etc.

What I want for USM is a chance to compete against, and be affiliated with, the best schools possible. I want people in Peoria, IL to not see us as another McNeese State, SLU, or even, to be brutally honest, another WKU or UNT. (Clearly we've now failed on those last two counts.)

So, if you see things as I do, Tech is a decent peer (semirespectable I-A history, plausible research university) but they're damned sure not Tulane.

The people who are enthusiastic about Tech are, I suspect, more focused on things like game day environment. They do bring their little contingent of fans and even their pep band. Ultimately, though, I feel like those goals will conspire to keep us little and unimportant. That was the Jeff Hammond way... that dude just didn't aspire to anything big (remember "middle-class university"?) and he still has his proponents.

My goals are different. But perhaps I should really say "were different" since it does seem like General Jeff and the "keep USM snuggly forever" crowd have mostly won out.

(05-10-2014 01:07 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 09:58 AM)Luckyshot Wrote:  

(05-07-2014 01:17 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  The AAC is CUSA 1.0 minus the baggage that kept CUSA 1.0 from becoming major.

This was true until they added Tulane. They were baggage in football every season except 1997 & 1998.

You're focusing more on performance in one particular sport than the conferences (i.e. schools) or TV networks do. The schools care about money and prestige. Tulane exudes "money and prestige". Tech does not.

The TV folks want big city appeal. Again, that isn't Tech. Not even close.

What do fans want: lots of wins? An excited crowd? A chance to go to a top-tier bowl? Lots of little bowls? Easy parking? TV exposure? A chance to affiliate with prestigious schools like Rice, SMU, or Army? A chance to affiliate with historical programs like UH, UTEP, or Louisville?

ADs have their own goals: filling schedules, building professional connections, balancing the budget...

Some of these goals actually conflict with each other. Suppose we got into the SEC. Parking would suddenly become nearly impossible, we'd probably lose a lot of games at first, etc.

What I want for USM is a chance to compete against, and be affiliated with, the best schools possible. I want people in Peoria, IL to not see us as another McNeese State, SLU, or even, to be brutally honest, another WKU or UNT. (Clearly we've now failed on those last two counts.)

So, if you see things as I do, Tech is a decent peer (semirespectable I-A history, plausible research university) but they're damned sure not Tulane.

The people who are enthusiastic about Tech are, I suspect, more focused on things like game day environment. They do bring their little contingent of fans and even their pep band. Ultimately, though, I feel like those goals will conspire to keep us little and unimportant. That was the Jeff Hammond way... that dude just didn't aspire to anything big (remember "middle-class university"?) and he still has his proponents.

My goals are different. But perhaps I should really say "were different" since it does seem like General Jeff and the "keep USM snuggly forever" crowd have mostly won out.

It is pretty difficult to find a school anywhere that will not bring or even have more fans than Tulane. I have nothing against the Wave but most of the games I have seen on TV from the dome over the years is really sad attendance wise.

Andre, I bet you really believe USM only missed out on the AACk because you slipped up and had an 0-12 season. That's cute. The AACk was initially put together fitting inside Aresco's little ruby slippers, then - later - it was cobbled together with enough teams to vest the exit fees of the many (i.e., all) schools that were leaving. Within 2 years, maybe 3, there will be a G5 realignment. It will be interesting in that I think we could see a very unique approach to conference affiliation...something drastic to save money and that has never been tried before. Will anyone outside the G5 care? No. Not really. It's certainly not going to happen in response to a team(s) getting a spot at the P5 table.

I know this is all gibberish to you because you mentioned earlier getting a spot in the AACk and "earning" you're way into the P5...which tells me you haven't been paying attention at all.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

(05-10-2014 04:32 PM)blazr Wrote:  Andre, I bet you really believe USM only missed out on the AACk because you slipped up and had an 0-12 season. That's cute. The AACk was initially put together fitting inside Aresco's little ruby slippers, then - later - it was cobbled together with enough teams to vest the exit fees of the many (i.e., all) schools that were leaving. Within 2 years, maybe 3, there will be a G5 realignment. It will be interesting in that I think we could see a very unique approach to conference affiliation...something drastic to save money and that has never been tried before. Will anyone outside the G5 care? No. Not really. It's certainly not going to happen in response to a team(s) getting a spot at the P5 table.

I know this is all gibberish to you because you mentioned earlier getting a spot in the AACk and "earning" you're way into the P5...which tells me you haven't been paying attention at all.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

You should read my posts more closely. My last post began by downplaying performance in any one sport. So I know 0-12 isn't what kept us out of the AAC.

I also disagree with your notion that there will be a G5 realignment along geographical lines. The AAC is basically a major conference. They're so far beyond us. Seriously, UConn is going to trade, say, affiliation with SMU for affiliation with Western Kentucky to save on gas? Come on, man, that doesn't pass the laugh test

The AAC thinks we're impoverished hicks and they're basically right. Nevertheless, USM had a real chance to sneak into a far better circle of friends in the AAC, as ECU finally did. Remember, it was not ECU that got into CUSA 1.0 or the Metro.

We blew it, though, because of poor leadership at exactly the wrong time. You can downplay the differences all you like, but at the end of the day WKU is no Tulane, MTSU is no Memphis, ODU is no UConn, and CUSA is no AAC. It's not even close, and being left behind is a huge missed opportunity for South Mississippi.

I didn't say anything about geographical lines. Don't put words in my mouth when you clearly need to save your best for your own.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

(05-10-2014 06:30 PM)blazr Wrote:  I didn't say anything about geographical lines. Don't put words in my mouth when you clearly need to save your best for your own.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Well, you said there was going to be a G5 realignment that would be directed at saving money; that's what made me think you were talking about more regional conferences. If you didn't mean that then I apologize for my wrong assumption.

(05-10-2014 08:14 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 06:30 PM)blazr Wrote:  I didn't say anything about geographical lines. Don't put words in my mouth when you clearly need to save your best for your own.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Well, you said there was going to be a G5 realignment that would be directed at saving money; that's what made me think you were talking about more regional conferences. If you didn't mean that then I apologize for my wrong assumption.

Understood. There are other ways to save money in the G5. They don't generally involve every G5 team or conference, but there are some "outside the box" ideas and - now that the P5 has sailed it's ship - they'll pick the best of those and give it a shot.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

(05-10-2014 09:54 AM)Luckyshot Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 07:20 PM)nastybunch Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 04:46 PM)AndreWhere Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 08:19 AM)nastybunch Wrote:  You can always tell a young USM fan that doesn't know the history if the USM Tech rivalry. I thought he was taking about Tulane when he said a few fans in the stands. I leaped for joy when I heard Tech was coming in

I'm almost 40 and I don't want to be in a conference with Tech.

Tulane draws remarkably poorly, and has done so since they lost LSU as their rival... but there's more to it than that.

Like I said, you can always tell a youngster.

I'm three years younger than him and VASTLY prefer LaTech to Tulane, because LaTech is, and has been my entire adult life, competitive in football. I remember their wins over Bama and I remember them being a strong independant before joining the WAC. I'd love it if we had gotten in a stronger, better paying conference, but since we have not, I like playing strong schools like LaTech and MTSU (my other favorite new addition).

La Tech has had 11 winning seasons within last 26yrs or the time they moved up to 1-A. They have averaged about $145,000 in gate receipts for home games, about 7250 paying fans at a cheap $20. per ticket, over past 8-10yr or so (exclude the Tex A&M game in Shreveport a couple of years ago) and even less prior to that. Their only home game against an SEC foe, Ms State, some 3-4yr ago had net gate receipts of about $264,000 which at $30. per pop was about 8800 paid of which some 2,000 were State fans. They are forced to cover half or more of their annual athletic dept expenses by withdrawing it from their schools general fund (taxpayer dollars) due to lack of fan support. In my opinion those, and there are many, who consider programs like this as being strong have their sights set too low and obviously have no objections to languishing in the lower echelons with the Cbelt.