There is some talk about the Big East teams Pitt and Syracuse moving to the ACC and possibly WVU moving out of the Big East as well, maybe to the SEC or ACC or Big 10. That would leave TCU, Cincy, UCONN, Louisville, Rutgers, USF in the BE. The prevailing opinion is that UCF would get an invite and maybe even ECU and or Memphis. That makes a 9 team league. But they may not stop there and invite KU, Mizzou, KSU to form a 12 member league. The 12 team Big 10 will possibly raid another conference ( I think Pitt would fit in there too). On and on.

But I'm only concerned with where we (TU) fit into the cfb landscape of the future. Here's my possible best case scenario - call them predictions.

I think we lose UCF and ECU for sure. But will they really survive in a new BE? Not sure. If we do lose them, we must look at our situation and realistically come up with an action plan. Here's mine.

We already have had discussions with the MWC/WAC. I think both us and the MWC/WAC must look at a "Super League" of the strongest remaining members not currently automatic BCS qualifiers. So my proposition is a two tier league of the very strongest remaining teams from CUSA, MWC/WAC and Independents (except "untouchable ND). This super conference would be made up of the very best cfb schools not already on the AQ list. A championship game would decide the team that represents the Super Conference. Right now the best 20 teams IMO would be.

Includes Independents*

Pacific----------West-------------Midland------------East
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawaii-----------UNLV/N Mex-------Baylor------------Army
Fresno St--------Air Force----------UTEP/Rice--------Navy
SD St------------Colorado St-------Tulsa-------------Iowa State
Boise St----------Wyoming---------SMU--------------So Miss
Nevada-----------BYU--------------Houston----------La Tech/Marshall

Would a super conference like that, be equal to or greater than the least AQ conference such as the BE. I think it would.

The Pacific and West would play as well as the Midland and East. You can figure out the schedules - 9 conference games each plus a championship game and spot in a BCS bowl.

There is one last thing, the "remaining teams" in CUSA and the WAC/MWC would play each other in a "play in" league and could work their way into the Super League mix if good enough and a super league team member proves less worthy. Every 4 years or so, the teams would reshuffle and the weaker super league teams move down and the stronger playin teams can move up. This would be based on RPI over the period discussed.

Remaining Teams forming a play in league coalition/league

Idaho
NMSt
San Jose St
Utah St
Tulane
UAB
Memphis
*UNLV/Rice/N Mexico/UTEP/La Tech/Marshall (three of these)

Also, this would be a football only alliance and would not effect CUSA/WAC/MWC in other sports, including MBB.

A couple of points here. Some folks might say, BYU, Navy, Army wouldn't go for it, but I think they would if it was an acceptable way to get a BCS bid or the only way to enter a championship FB tournament. BYU, for instance would reestablish their tradional rivalries in the "old" WAC as well as current power Boise St. So I think it works if there's a treasure chest at the end of the rainbow.

Our problem is always going to be our size and alumni base, heck we don't have as many living alumni as many of the schools have students attending this year. It is going to be a sales job by Tulsa to determine where we end up. We will probably have a tough time getting any state universities to back us. The only schools that may end up out in the cold from the Big 12 are KU, KSU, Iowa St and Baylor, what they do is the key. If the BCS conferences go to 16 teams, they won't be left out and nothing really changes. If they stop at 14, then everything is up for grabs. The Big East is probably DOA without taking in some new schools, that's probably the only hope for non-BCS schools to move up in the near future.

(09-19-2011 05:43 PM)jfisher Wrote:  Our problem is always going to be our size and alumni base, heck we don't have as many living alumni as many of the schools have students attending this year. It is going to be a sales job by Tulsa to determine where we end up. We will probably have a tough time getting any state universities to back us. The only schools that may end up out in the cold from the Big 12 are KU, KSU, Iowa St and Baylor, what they do is the key. If the BCS conferences go to 16 teams, they won't be left out and nothing really changes. If they stop at 14, then everything is up for grabs. The Big East is probably DOA without taking in some new schools, that's probably the only hope for non-BCS schools to move up in the near future.

I'll agree that alum base is an advantage that allows a school a foot in the door, but I think distance from that school trumps it. My question "How many alums do the Dallas Cowboys have?" always goes unanswered because noone can refute it. What we sometimes fight is the state schools making game attendence "a happening" on campus and a way of getting the alums back on thier campus.

TU hasn't always been the smartest in making it easy for people to get on campus for games. In spite of what you hear, parking is still a problem, lack of tailgate areas, pre-game activities etc. and our home opponents for the most part aren't up to an acceptable standard most years compared to the competition. OSU had a home schedule last year that included us, Nebraska, A@M, and OU. Ours included UCA, Bowling Green, Tulane and Rice. As long as thats the norm, we'll never be any better than we are now. And there's no BCS bowl to shoot for on top of that. And we aren't always competing against OU/OSU as much as with the college glut of fb on TV. That's why we have to make the TU experience something more unique and different but still easy to attend. The big problem OSU will always have is their remote distance and hayseed perception. TU is a city school with all kinds of stuff going on and a place that can be enticing to out of towners. Other than game day, what does Stillwater really have? A school in the Big 12. That's it.

I noticed a lot of the OSU posters on rivals don't seem to want the series to stop as I do (since it isn't in our interests to continue at this time IMO). The reason is that when they travel, its to Lawrence or Manhattan or Ames or College Station or Lubbock. Not exactly the greatest sight seeing locations on planet earth. But lots of cows and corn fields.

The easiest and most logical way for all this mess to end up is the remaining Big East and remaining Big 12 teams get together to form either the New Big East or the New Big 12. Nothing else changes but one less BCS conference which might open the door a crack.....for a slight chance of the winner of a playoff game between CUSA-MWC getting a BCS bowl.........that also could be wishful thinking.....but 22 schools with more Senators and Reps in Congress could scare the BCS enough to get it done. In my opinion that's the only way the BCS schools will allow everyone else in. It gets more interesting if both the Big East and the Big 12 try to stay as individual conferences.......I don't see that helping Tulsa at all but not really hurting us either. The only chance for Tulsa would be the Big 12 going to 16 schools, which is unlikely and even if they did, it would still be a stretch to get Tulsa included.

nm

What we are going to see friday is what I want to see in the future, but probably will not ever see again. What is it? Well, a lot of opposing (Houston) fans in Chapman stadium for a conference game. I expect Houston to bring at least 3,000plus fans all the way from Houston and points in Texas north of there. That is what we'll miss more than anything when UH and SMU move on IMO. It will motivate their players IMO.

But the tragedy is that it will probably not occur again because our conference is so far flung and distant wo them. Question: Now that UH (and SMU) is/are in a BCS league, should we sign a 2-1 with them? Bubba are you listening?

Just forget them if they are gone......don't play them period. If the BCS stays like it is, good for them.......although one way or the other it doesn't look that way. We can replace them with La Tech and North Texas if CUSA wants and get even more of their fans. Over the last 10 years, No Texas has been every bit as good as SMU and La Tech has been as good as Houston for those same 10 years. When Keenum is gone......good luck with an undefeated season. Do a 2-1 with Missouri and Kansas if that's what we have to do. they bring plenty of fans.....just alternate the year they play us in Tulsa!!

I hate losing them (UH, SMU) , but we just have no control over their decisions. IMO we have one and only one goal right now and that is to get our fans back watching TU fb in Tulsa. So I will do anything that allows us to meet that goal. I'd sure hope we could get a full house come friday. I am bringing an old buddy and trying to convince several others to come that would be casuals. We need to look good on TV and to a lot of the fans that may be future season ticket purchasers. To tell the truth I've even bought full grown adults a TU hat to wear to the games. Now who would do that that wasn't trying to encourage new fans to come.

Our fears have now been realized. Houston, SMU and UCF have disappeared from CUSA and Boise (and San Diego St) from out west. It appears that the BE is just being run by ESPN and wants the sponsorship dollars that go along with the big city schools of Dallas, Houston, Oralando and San Diego. The only "team" that really mattered was Boise St, but that legitimized the realigning BE move to the ESPN money gods.

This specifically hurts our program and literally takes our only real committed rivals away and off the schedule forever. I won't go into the responsible parties at TU anymore that IMO enabled much of this and jumped ship, but the damage has been done and we must now live with the result. Again, my only concern is how this effects US, TU.

One of my strategies was to go independent. Why? Well the result was, we have have lost our two best conference rivals, rivals we could attend away games at and rivals that could attend games here (example Houstons game two weeks ago). Only by being an independent can we be in complete control of scheduling now. It allows us to sign favorable contracts with teams we have a lot in common with. In reality, do we have a lot in common with a UNLV or a Marshall? I don't think we do. But if we did, we could freely schedule them as an independent. TBH. I don't think we have much in common with Rice and Tulane either. It could be argued that we have as much in common with La Tech, Arkansas St or Louisiana (Laf) than Rice or Tulane. But it could also be argued we have a better history of competition with Louisville or Cincinnati than Rice and Tulane. So IMO we'd have a better chance scheduling those teams being independent than in a conference. The big question would be whether we could get a decent TV deal as an independent. Army, Navy, BYU and ND seem to survive without a conference TV package, why not us? Maybe we could get several other decent programs to go independent and join into an independent TV package deal (like a conference) but without the rigid revenue sharing from a conference TV package. Tulane for instance gets more TV revenue from the better teams like us in the league than they deserve. In other words they aren't pulling their weight.

The second alternative (not in the present alliance makeup) would be to join with of many of the other schools in the alliance and form a super conference of what is left over, but without the weaker teams. We are centrally located, so getting some decent schools to leave their league and join with us in a better league than what we have now in CUSA and MWC might be an attractive alternative. How about a conference with Fresno St, Nevada, UNLV, Wyoming, Air Force, Colorado St, New Mexico, UTEP, Tulsa, La Tech, Memphis, ECU, So Miss and Marshall. We'd flush the weak programs of Rice, Tulane and UAB and Hawaii would be out because of distance and would not be needed.

A third option is the least attractive and would force us to join a lower tier conference we have little in common with.

So in the end the removal of UH and SMU is a pretty devastating blow when all is said and done IMO. We cultivated a relationship of competition with those schools and it disappears before our eyes as they "upgrade" and we "downgrade" out of necessity. Rice will not and cannot take the place of UH. SMU, our "like" rival cannot be replaced. North Texas isn't SMU. Texas St isn't Houston. And will we now compete for Texas recruits with our arch rival Rice? That is just not acceptable! IMO.

We are in the "no mans land" of DI non AQ football. We are now no better off than Rice, UAB and Tulane. We have married ourselves to those schools and may never get a mutual divorce. We even get confused with Tulane more times than not. Its a shame. But the warnings were there all along and the decision makers just took the easy way out IMO.

I dont like the super conference idea, at the rick of soundy overly cocky, there are way more bad teams than good teams. IMO, some teams could really benefit to break away from the WAC, CUSA and MWC and form a new conference.

Fresno St.
Hawaii
La Tech
Tulsa
UTEP
ECU
USM
Memphis
Air Force
Utah st or Nevada

And I would throw in North Texas just for the potential they have. That would be an outstanding conference that wouldnt take long to pass what we currently have in CUSA. But leaving them split up in 3 so-so conferences only drags down the others.

A long shot, but I think you would have a potential to add BYU as well.

The Alliance is probably the way we end of going and I don't think it is a bad idea but we probably need to go to 18 teams by adding No Texas and La Tech. That creates two 9 team divisions so you play the same 8 teams every year.....that's good for building rivalries......but and it's a big but, which division is Tulsa in.......if UTEP goes west that makes it 10 East and 8 West, what other school goes West???? I know the Eastern half of CUSA wants to add teams that are closer to them but Fla Atlantic and FIU don't even sound like real schools, or have a history as football schools. Then you throw in those very popular football powers of Appalachin St( so well known, I can't even spell it) or Middle Tenn State......there's East, West North and South but Middle.....they just don't make me believe they're going to be football powerhouses and their academics may not help us either. No matter what anyone thinks about Rice and Tulane they both have a history and name recognition, so they get to stay. Maybe the answer is just add three teams to CUSA, No Texas, La Tech and god forbid one of those Florida schools and play on..........remember, over the last 10 years as I've said before Houston and SMU have not set the world on fire by any means and they didn't get their Big Least invite because of their great football or basketball teams, just their location.

A new alignment that would definitely keep our name in front of the recruits in our two biggest recruiting states, Tex and La..................
Tulsa
No Texas
Texas St
UTSA
UTEP
Rice
ULL
La Tech
Tulane
Now if that doesn't keep our name out there in Tex and La, I don't
know what would.

As I've said, I hate the idea we lose SMU and Houston and that could pressure us into losing UTEP to the MW part of the alliance.

But looking at where we are now, we must prepare for the future. So I'm going to throw this out there and see if it sticks on the wall.
I don't like this configuration, but its probably as good as we can do at this point.


Alliance West------ 2014 and beyond
Hawaii
Fresno St
Nevada
UNLV
Utah St
Air Force
Wyoming
Colorado St
New Mexico
UTEP



Alliance East-----2014 and beyond
Tulsa
Rice
Louisiana
Louisiana Tech
Memphis
So Miss
ECU
Marshall
Tulane
No Texas

Possible future additions
West
BYU
NMS/SJS

East
UTSA
FAU/Army


I've excluded UAB from the east. I don't think having them in this alliance is meaningful because they no longer are able to commit the needed resources to be competitive. Unfortunate.

There are only two addtions from the SBC (Louisiana and NT),and the WAC (LTech) in the east and only one addition from the WAC (Utah St) to the west, so that is somewhat workable, but the old CUSA reputation/national perception will take a big hit IMO and will further dilute the fan base wo a more name brand opponent to play in league at home every other year. Unless the madness stops, we need to be "more pretty" to the beauty contest judges in the BCS.

Bump

Alliance East

Army
Temple
Marshall
ECU
USM
La Tech
Tulane or Louisiana
Rice
Tulsa
North Texas
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
Alliance West

Hawaii
Fresno St
Nevada
UNLV
Utah St
Cololrado St
Air Force
Wyoming
N Mexico
UTEP


Any takers? Its not great, but we are out of options. I've been saying this is coming a long time. This model gives us somewhat of a presence in Texas. It allows two brand name military schools to give us national credence. It has about 4 CFB powers in each alliance (unfortuantely that leaves 6 each that aren't).

But my fear is that USM and ECU are next on the expansion block. Why aren't we? I've outlined my thoughts why this occurred, but I doubt some will accept it (especially on rivals - they're in denial). As far as those on rivals are concerned, we are too small and we should always - ALWAYS accept scraps. But isn't that the kind of thinking that got us to this spot in the first place?

If Temple comes on board for 17, big market and UNT, big market, is added it should make for a nice TV contract. 18 teams is the ideal size, 9 teams in each division....play the other 8 teams in each division and a championship game. 4 OOC games....perfect number.

(02-09-2012 07:45 AM)rabidTU Wrote:  Alliance East

Army
Temple
Marshall
ECU
USM
La Tech
Tulane or Louisiana
Rice
Tulsa
North Texas
------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
Alliance West

Hawaii
Fresno St
Nevada
UNLV
Utah St
Cololrado St
Air Force
Wyoming
N Mexico
UTEP


Any takers? Its not great, but we are out of options. I've been saying this is coming a long time. This model gives us somewhat of a presence in Texas. It allows two brand name military schools to give us national credence. It has about 4 CFB powers in each alliance (unfortuantely that leaves 6 each that aren't).

But my fear is that USM and ECU are next on the expansion block. Why aren't we? I've outlined my thoughts why this occurred, but I doubt some will accept it (especially on rivals - they're in denial). As far as those on rivals are concerned, we are too small and we should always - ALWAYS accept scraps. But isn't that the kind of thinking that got us to this spot in the first place?

The problem with my list of course is that it leaves out one of the schools, UAB. But IMO they should be odd man out when expansion is done. They aren't keeping up and anytime expansion is discussed, the weaker programs hurt the rest. Their only advantage is some preceived geographic tie to USM, UCF and ECU. But wo UCF for balance, they now become expendable IMO. Would you want them over Army or Temple as a tenth team? They aren't contributing but they are getting a cut of the proceeds. UAB basketball hasn't been much of a player lately and may not be long term either. They are financially strapped and have to go to their more important neighbors in Tuscaloosa for help they never seem to get. I hate leaving them out, but they are just hanging on right now. Bad timing. If you lose to UAB its a disaster because of their perception. Win, and its expected every time. I hate saying this, but in realignment its every man for himself, unfortunately.

(02-12-2012 10:24 PM)jfisher Wrote:  If Temple comes on board for 17, big market and UNT, big market, is added it should make for a nice TV contract. 18 teams is the ideal size, 9 teams in each division....play the other 8 teams in each division and a championship game. 4 OOC games....perfect number.

Of all the plausible options I've read, I think this would be best for TU. UTEP would go west. Temple & UNT would be east. Tulsa would have one opponent each in Dallas & Houston. 8 conference games each year. Not as good as the past, but the best realistic option today.

Down the road, we really should do all we can to reunite with SMU, Houston & Memphis, IMO.

I think we need to decide whether we want to invite teams on board because of their quality or invite them because of their proximity to a metro area for TV. But its always been my contention that a variety of qualities make for a good addition. We could do the Sunbelt thing and invite Florida (A) or (I), North Texas, Middle Tennessee and UTSA to get the Miami, Dallas, San Antonio and Nashville markets, but would that be a good thing in the long run for the mergered conference? I think we need to be careful because right now we are the "raided" not the "raider". IMO we need to get worthy programs who enhance us from a standpoint of quality, not necessarily just numbers or audience. I mean really, how often has FI-FA, NT, MTS or UTSA actually been on TV? Are they known out there in CFB land?

IMO we need to sit back and see if any of these SB programs get worthy of the move. I'm leery of a watered down conference. If that begins to occur, then we may as well join the sunbelt. Some of these teams may just be fools gold. I'd rather concentrate on improving us first.

Marshall has a very nice IPF coming with other athletic enhancements. They are already on board and I think it is important to strengthen the programs we already have first and foremost. Let those other SB programs prove themselves. Once they get into the conference, there is no turning back.