(04-22-2013 12:59 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 12:44 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 12:35 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 12:34 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  well it looks like we will be here awhile.

Maybe not. The B10 might be a possibility for a school like UConn.

Possibly...but there would be no #16 now that Kansas is locked into GOR and ACC schools are locked in GOR.

Plus the B1G has no real interest in Connecticut from what I have heard.

Time is yours UMass. Get your act together so it wouldn't be an absolute embarassment to invite you. We need a rival.

I wish that we didn't get Tulsa so quickly. I really don't think that Navy is coming or if they do, they won't stay long. UMass, Charlotte, GSU, and UTSA could be players by 2015. UMass and Charlotte would really help us in bb.

With this news out of ACC today; you can go ahead and take every school off that list not named UMass. Army is a long shot, but ODU, UTSA, GSU and Charlotte are way, way, way, way down that road.

Im dumb

Can someone please explain what Grant of Rights means and why its relevant.

(04-22-2013 01:12 PM)panicstricken Wrote:  Im dumb

Can someone please explain what Grant of Rights means and why its relevant.

Basically if you leave a conference your TV revenue (from your new conference) is owned by the conference you left.

(04-22-2013 01:04 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 12:59 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  UMass, Charlotte, GSU, and UTSA could be players by 2015. UMass and Charlotte would really help us in bb.

Do everybody here a favor and stfu about these schools (sans UMass).

+infinity.

As a Texan that knows all about UTSA, I want nothing to do with a glorified juco that exists solely to give UT rejects a last ditch effort to backdoor their way into a real school.

(04-22-2013 01:09 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:05 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:04 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 12:59 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  UMass, Charlotte, GSU, and UTSA could be players by 2015. UMass and Charlotte would really help us in bb.

Do everybody here a favor and stfu about these schools (sans UMass).

They can STFU about UMass, too. No need.

You can find the flagship university of a state with a population of 6.6 million and an enrollment of 30 K someplace else?

If they had your kind of thinking, the B1G would never have added Rutgers and probably not Maryland either. But they think long term, which is why they
Re so successful.

Whatever. They stink. They're in a small market and their leadership thinks small. They've had how long and they can't support a football program? Some flagship.

Anyone consider that this could force the big12 and big tens hand and make some teams jump before its signed

(04-22-2013 01:13 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:04 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 12:59 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  UMass, Charlotte, GSU, and UTSA could be players by 2015. UMass and Charlotte would really help us in bb.

Do everybody here a favor and stfu about these schools (sans UMass).

+infinity.

As a Texan that knows all about UTSA, I want nothing to do with a glorified juco that exists solely to give UT rejects a last ditch effort to backdoor their way into a real school.

35,000 rejects sure do find their way to the Alamodome on saturday.

So if FSU leaves to go to the SEC. The ACC gets the 20 million a year or so that the SEC TV contract would give them and FSU doesnt get anything.

Is that right?

My prediction ... BYU and Cincinnati to the Big 12 and UConn to the ACC. Then it's all over with.

(04-22-2013 01:07 PM)FrancisDrake Wrote:  "poachable" for the B1G is narrowed, but for the Big12 I think Cincy and BYU are a possibility. So are UCF/USF, maybe Boise, Memphis or ECU too. Still though, this calms major conference movement down at least through the end of the Big12 GoR.

As long as Texas calls the shots in the Big 12, none of those schools you mentioned except maybe BYU will even sniff an invite to that conference.

(04-22-2013 01:19 PM)panicstricken Wrote:  So if FSU leaves to go to the SEC. The ACC gets the 20 million a year or so that the SEC TV contract would give them and FSU doesnt get anything.

Is that right?

Theoretically, yes. What it really means is that FSU would have to buy out their remaining years of their share of the conference media deal.

(04-22-2013 12:59 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 12:44 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 12:35 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 12:34 PM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  well it looks like we will be here awhile.

Maybe not. The B10 might be a possibility for a school like UConn.

Possibly...but there would be no #16 now that Kansas is locked into GOR and ACC schools are locked in GOR.

Plus the B1G has no real interest in Connecticut from what I have heard.

Time is yours UMass. Get your act together so it wouldn't be an absolute embarassment to invite you. We need a rival.

I wish that we didn't get Tulsa so quickly. I really don't think that Navy is coming or if they do, they won't stay long. UMass, Charlotte, GSU, and UTSA could be players by 2015. UMass and Charlotte would really help us in bb.

If thats our future grabbing or not grabbing Tulsa would hardly be a major factor.

(04-22-2013 01:15 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:09 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:05 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:04 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 12:59 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  UMass, Charlotte, GSU, and UTSA could be players by 2015. UMass and Charlotte would really help us in bb.

Do everybody here a favor and stfu about these schools (sans UMass).

They can STFU about UMass, too. No need.

You can find the flagship university of a state with a population of 6.6 million and an enrollment of 30 K someplace else?

If they had your kind of thinking, the B1G would never have added Rutgers and probably not Maryland either. But they think long term, which is why they
Re so successful.

Whatever. They stink. They're in a small market and their leadership thinks small. They've had how long and they can't support a football program? Some flagship.

None of what you said matters one bit. If you had to bet on who the next member of the AAC might be; I would certainly hope that you would have the good sense to put UMass in your top 2 choices (Army being the other, because they are almost a lock now considering that UConn and Temple are probably going to stay put for a little while. IMO those schools will not support inviting any more more southern or western schools unless UMass is invited too.

The ACC isnt going to want UCONN bc it will reduce everyones turn to play ND and would essentially force ND into a division.

(04-22-2013 01:15 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:09 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:05 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:04 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 12:59 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  UMass, Charlotte, GSU, and UTSA could be players by 2015. UMass and Charlotte would really help us in bb.

Do everybody here a favor and stfu about these schools (sans UMass).

They can STFU about UMass, too. No need.

You can find the flagship university of a state with a population of 6.6 million and an enrollment of 30 K someplace else?nSomeone from UCF should know that better than anyone.

If they had your kind of thinking, the B1G would never have added Rutgers and probably not Maryland either. But they think long term, which is why they
Re so successful.

Whatever. They stink. They're in a small market and their leadership thinks small. They've had how long and they can't support a football program? Some flagship.

And Tulsa with an enrollment of 3,000 and football attendance of 20,000 which is hardly better than UMass + non-existent basketball attendance was a better choice? At least UMass offers something you can build toward.

(04-22-2013 01:16 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:13 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:04 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 12:59 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  UMass, Charlotte, GSU, and UTSA could be players by 2015. UMass and Charlotte would really help us in bb.

Do everybody here a favor and stfu about these schools (sans UMass).

+infinity.

As a Texan that knows all about UTSA, I want nothing to do with a glorified juco that exists solely to give UT rejects a last ditch effort to backdoor their way into a real school.

35,000 rejects sure do find their way to the Alamodome on saturday.

After a few 3-9 seasons they could very well fnd something better to do. If after 3 or 4 3-to-4 win seasons, 35K a game are still there, then maybe they will be worth talking about. Right now, its all too new and unpredictable. Frankly, I think Texas State is the better long term bet. It sits between two large metro areas, it has a larger enrollment, and a suitable on campus stadium. Its in a beautiful college town--but within an hours drive of San Antonio and Austin. Put them in a decent confernece, and they could draw on alumni from two nearby major cities.

(04-22-2013 01:22 PM)panicstricken Wrote:  The ACC isnt going to want UCONN bc it will reduce everyones turn to play ND and would essentially force ND into a division.

Exactly. this GOR is good news for most of us. It's really bad news for Cincy & UConn. Also, the Big 12 has stated about 1,000,000 times now that they're very happy at 10 members.

(04-22-2013 01:21 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:19 PM)panicstricken Wrote:  So if FSU leaves to go to the SEC. The ACC gets the 20 million a year or so that the SEC TV contract would give them and FSU doesnt get anything.

Is that right?

Theoretically, yes. What it really means is that FSU would have to buy out their remaining years of their share of the conference media deal.

I don't think that is what it means. I believe it means that the ACC would own the broadcast rights to FSU's games, not to their conference games. And yes, buying out those rights would be one way to handle it.

(04-22-2013 01:22 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:15 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:09 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:05 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-22-2013 01:04 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Do everybody here a favor and stfu about these schools (sans UMass).

They can STFU about UMass, too. No need.

You can find the flagship university of a state with a population of 6.6 million and an enrollment of 30 K someplace else?

If they had your kind of thinking, the B1G would never have added Rutgers and probably not Maryland either. But they think long term, which is why they
Re so successful.

Whatever. They stink. They're in a small market and their leadership thinks small. They've had how long and they can't support a football program? Some flagship.

None of what you said matters one bit. If you had to bet on who the next member of the AAC might be; I would certainly hope that you would have the good sense to put UMass in your top 2 choices (Army being the other, because they are almost a lock now considering that UConn and Temple are probably going to stay put for a little while. IMO those schools will not support inviting any more more southern or western schools unless UMass is invited too.

It's about leadership more than anything. ECU is in a small market, but their leadership thinks big and it shows. They're dedicated to building a good program and they're a welcome addition. UMass does not have that leadership. They think small time and have little interest in building their program.

Oh and BTW, Southern Miss and Army would be my two leading candidates for expansion.

Cool then.

I like this conference just the way it is right now.

Ive said this a ton. Being in a league with Cinncy, Temple and UCONN is something most Tulsa hoops fans couldnt even fathom when we were stuck in the post airport WAC.

Im sure the reverse sentiment is true for most UCONN fans and to a lesser extent Cinncy fans but this conference is a huge step up for the CUSA 7 that just came in.