Let's suppose that CUSA 1.0 had decided to maximize its TV appeal and had gone for 12 teams and a CCG.

Let's ignore any impact on the non-football schools, so you get this original lineup for football (kind of ignoring the disparate start times for Army, ECU, and Houston for simplicity's sake).

Army
Cincinnati
Louisville
East Carolina
Memphis
UAB
Southern Miss
Tulane
Houston

I don't really know the dynamics of the WAC versus CUSA at this point. Obviously the SWC-3 (Rice, TCU, SMU) + Tulsa decided to join the WAC, while Houston decided to join CUSA. I leave it up to each poster to decide if those schools would rather be in CUSA if an invite were available.

Other schools to consider: UCF (who had been considered as a member but rejected the conference due to a stupid AD); North Texas; Louisiana Tech; ULL (Southwest Louisiana); ULM (Northeast Louisiana); Arkansas State; Northern Illinois.

Soon to move up from 1-AA: Marshall; Buffalo; Middle Tennessee

Citrus: you forgot about TCU; they added them in 2001.

You also had USF, who was a founding member, working on getting their FBS program online.

For 2003 and 2004 they actually had 11 football programs. They just needed to have one more lined up to start in 2003 or prior.

UCF would be the common sense #12 if you could talk them into leaving the MAC.

(04-20-2020 08:38 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Citrus: you forgot about TCU; they added them in 2001.

You also had USF, who was a founding member, working on getting their FBS program online.

For 2003 and 2004 they actually had 11 football programs. They just needed to have one more lined up to start in 2003 or prior.

UCF would be the common sense #12 if you could talk them into leaving the MAC.

TCU and SMU were thought of as a lock to join C-USA together, but it ended up only being TCU. I guess some votes changed at the 11th hour.

(04-20-2020 08:38 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Citrus: you forgot about TCU; they added them in 2001.

You also had USF, who was a founding member, working on getting their FBS program online.

For 2003 and 2004 they actually had 11 football programs. They just needed to have one more lined up to start in 2003 or prior.

UCF would be the common sense #12 if you could talk them into leaving the MAC.

Well, I’m talking 1996 timeframe, and I mentioned TCU and SMU. Do you think they take CUSA over the WAC?

There were 5 charter football members and Houston was lassoed in to make 6 to meet the football conference minimum. This seems to have been the initial "goal", have a football home for these teams. They did eventually pick up further independents ECU ('97), Army ('98), and UAB ('99). The conference lazily climbed to 11 (TCU in '01, USF in '03) before realignment struck.

If C-USA had intended to go for 12 at the onset, the easist move would have been to snag a few of the teams who left the Big West for independence (Arkansas St, Louisiana, and La Tech) to get to a quick 9.

Marshall? Northern Illinois? The MAC moved on them and may have had more prestige than the Metro-Great Midwest merger.

ECU's entrance was in part a delay (https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pi...090161.htm) now we are at 10 teams. If the goal was to get to 12, '96 entrants UAB and UCF would be the other quick picks. That gives you divisions of:

WEST
Louisiana
Arkansas St
La Tech
Southern Miss
Tulane
Houston

EAST
Cincinnati
Louisville
Memphis
East Carolina
UAB
UCF

What of Army? they can still come in '98 and to keep things even let us bring in Navy (to the West, of course). Their rivalry game would have been played on the same Saturday as the Championship Game, so it may have had to have been moved later a week 11 years early.

TCU? take in USF a few years early and bring on the quads.

SOUTH
Louisiana
Arkansas St
La Tech
Southern Miss

WEST
TCU
Tulane
Houston
Navy

NORTH
Cincinnati
Louisville
Memphis
UAB

EAST
East Carolina
UCF
Army
USF


Conference USA 2.0? Nah. Still have 12 teams. SMU, Rice, Tulsa, and UTEP can remain in the 10-team WAC (which would take 2 of USU, Idaho, and NMSU to get to 12).

But, that last part about the WAC points out that a CCG was not (seen as) the panacea this thread presupposes. The Liberty Bowl was the much bigger "get" for the conference upon its founding.

(04-21-2020 01:22 AM)Crayton Wrote:  There were 5 charter football members and Houston was lassoed in to make 6 to meet the football conference minimum. This seems to have been the initial "goal", have a football home for these teams. They did eventually pick up further independents ECU ('97), Army ('98), and UAB ('99). The conference lazily climbed to 11 (TCU in '01, USF in '03) before realignment struck.

If C-USA had intended to go for 12 at the onset, the easist move would have been to snag a few of the teams who left the Big West for independence (Arkansas St, Louisiana, and La Tech) to get to a quick 9.

Marshall? Northern Illinois? The MAC moved on them and may have had more prestige than the Metro-Great Midwest merger.

ECU's entrance was in part a delay (https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pi...090161.htm) now we are at 10 teams. If the goal was to get to 12, '96 entrants UAB and UCF would be the other quick picks. That gives you divisions of:

WEST
Louisiana
Arkansas St
La Tech
Southern Miss
Tulane
Houston

EAST
Cincinnati
Louisville
Memphis
East Carolina
UAB
UCF

What of Army? they can still come in '98 and to keep things even let us bring in Navy (to the West, of course). Their rivalry game would have been played on the same Saturday as the Championship Game, so it may have had to have been moved later a week 11 years early.

TCU? take in USF a few years early and bring on the quads.

SOUTH
Louisiana
Arkansas St
La Tech
Southern Miss

WEST
TCU
Tulane
Houston
Navy

NORTH
Cincinnati
Louisville
Memphis
UAB

EAST
East Carolina
UCF
Army
USF


Conference USA 2.0? Nah. Still have 12 teams. SMU, Rice, Tulsa, and UTEP can remain in the 10-team WAC (which would take 2 of USU, Idaho, and NMSU to get to 12).

But, that last part about the WAC points out that a CCG was not (seen as) the panacea this thread presupposes. The Liberty Bowl was the much bigger "get" for the conference upon its founding.

Here is the thing. The original concept behind CUSA is exactly why I didnt want Houston to go there. I preferrred Houston to follow the other SWC teams to the WAC. The WAC was a more "football-centric" league that would have preserved some of the Cougars SWC opponents. Instead, the UH administration opted to be the lone former SWC team to go to CUSA. The teams involved in CUSA were relatively unfamiliar to Houston football fans. Furthermore, those schools were building a league based on the Big East model. They wanted to create a league that would be a strong basketball conference with big markets that also offered the schools a place to park their football (something the Metro never offered). Despite the added football "hook"----CUSA was very much conceived as a basketball first conference in its early formative years.

The early formative concepts of "basketball first" and "big tv markets" is the reason CUSA never probably would have considered many of the schools being tossed around in this thread.

The original C-USA would have received more respect if they would have chosen to be named the Metro instead of C-USA. The name set them up for ridicule

I know this is about C-USA 1.0, but why did Charlotte and St. Louis leave in 2005? Were they forced out, or did they just decide the A-10 fit them better at that time?

(04-21-2020 04:51 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  I know this is about C-USA 1.0, but why did Charlotte and St. Louis leave in 2005? Were they forced out, or did they just decide the A-10 fit them better at that time?

No football.

At one time, C-USA had "no-football but all other sports members" Marquette, DePaul, UAB, Saint Louis and Charlotte. Add to those Cincy, Louisville, Houston, TCU and Memphis ... a damn fine hoops league.

(04-21-2020 01:22 AM)Crayton Wrote:  There were 5 charter football members and Houston was lassoed in to make 6 to meet the football conference minimum. This seems to have been the initial "goal", have a football home for these teams. They did eventually pick up further independents ECU ('97), Army ('98), and UAB ('99). The conference lazily climbed to 11 (TCU in '01, USF in '03) before realignment struck.

If C-USA had intended to go for 12 at the onset, the easist move would have been to snag a few of the teams who left the Big West for independence (Arkansas St, Louisiana, and La Tech) to get to a quick 9.

Marshall? Northern Illinois? The MAC moved on them and may have had more prestige than the Metro-Great Midwest merger.

ECU's entrance was in part a delay (https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pi...090161.htm) now we are at 10 teams. If the goal was to get to 12, '96 entrants UAB and UCF would be the other quick picks. That gives you divisions of:

WEST
Louisiana
Arkansas St
La Tech
Southern Miss
Tulane
Houston

EAST
Cincinnati
Louisville
Memphis
East Carolina
UAB
UCF

What of Army? they can still come in '98 and to keep things even let us bring in Navy (to the West, of course). Their rivalry game would have been played on the same Saturday as the Championship Game, so it may have had to have been moved later a week 11 years early.

TCU? take in USF a few years early and bring on the quads.

SOUTH
Louisiana
Arkansas St
La Tech
Southern Miss

WEST
TCU
Tulane
Houston
Navy

NORTH
Cincinnati
Louisville
Memphis
UAB

EAST
East Carolina
UCF
Army
USF


Conference USA 2.0? Nah. Still have 12 teams. SMU, Rice, Tulsa, and UTEP can remain in the 10-team WAC (which would take 2 of USU, Idaho, and NMSU to get to 12).

But, that last part about the WAC points out that a CCG was not (seen as) the panacea this thread presupposes. The Liberty Bowl was the much bigger "get" for the conference upon its founding.

Sweet baby Jesus why did one of these two conferences not materialize, I would never have another football worry in the world.

(04-21-2020 03:06 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-21-2020 01:22 AM)Crayton Wrote:  There were 5 charter football members and Houston was lassoed in to make 6 to meet the football conference minimum. This seems to have been the initial "goal", have a football home for these teams. They did eventually pick up further independents ECU ('97), Army ('98), and UAB ('99). The conference lazily climbed to 11 (TCU in '01, USF in '03) before realignment struck.

If C-USA had intended to go for 12 at the onset, the easist move would have been to snag a few of the teams who left the Big West for independence (Arkansas St, Louisiana, and La Tech) to get to a quick 9.

Marshall? Northern Illinois? The MAC moved on them and may have had more prestige than the Metro-Great Midwest merger.

ECU's entrance was in part a delay (https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pi...090161.htm) now we are at 10 teams. If the goal was to get to 12, '96 entrants UAB and UCF would be the other quick picks. That gives you divisions of:

WEST
Louisiana
Arkansas St
La Tech
Southern Miss
Tulane
Houston

EAST
Cincinnati
Louisville
Memphis
East Carolina
UAB
UCF

What of Army? they can still come in '98 and to keep things even let us bring in Navy (to the West, of course). Their rivalry game would have been played on the same Saturday as the Championship Game, so it may have had to have been moved later a week 11 years early.

TCU? take in USF a few years early and bring on the quads.

SOUTH
Louisiana
Arkansas St
La Tech
Southern Miss

WEST
TCU
Tulane
Houston
Navy

NORTH
Cincinnati
Louisville
Memphis
UAB

EAST
East Carolina
UCF
Army
USF


Conference USA 2.0? Nah. Still have 12 teams. SMU, Rice, Tulsa, and UTEP can remain in the 10-team WAC (which would take 2 of USU, Idaho, and NMSU to get to 12).

But, that last part about the WAC points out that a CCG was not (seen as) the panacea this thread presupposes. The Liberty Bowl was the much bigger "get" for the conference upon its founding.

Here is the thing. The original concept behind CUSA is exactly why I didnt want Houston to go there. I preferrred Houston to follow the other SWC teams to the WAC. The WAC was a more "football-centric" league that would have preserved some of the Cougars SWC opponents. Instead, the UH administration opted to be the lone former SWC team to go to CUSA. The teams involved in CUSA were relatively unfamiliar to Houston football fans. Furthermore, those schools were building a league based on the Big East model. They wanted to create a league that would be a strong basketball conference with big markets that also offered the schools a place to park their football (something the Metro never offered). Despite the added football "hook"----CUSA was very much conceived as a basketball first conference in its early formative years.

The early formative concepts of "basketball first" and "big tv markets" is the reason CUSA never probably would have considered many of the schools being tossed around in this thread.

You raise a great point that CUSA was intended to be kind of a Midwest-Southern Big East with solid basketball and good TV markets.

That makes me wonder about Tulsa as a potential member. They had just been on quite a basketball run under Tubby Smith with 4 consecutive tourney appearances including two Sweet 16s.

(04-21-2020 04:51 AM)Michael in Raleigh Wrote:  I know this is about C-USA 1.0, but why did Charlotte and St. Louis leave in 2005? Were they forced out, or did they just decide the A-10 fit them better at that time?

The answer to both is yes. We "could have stayed", but our Chancellor at the time had already made it clear he wasn't doing football that late in his tenure. On paper C-USA 2.0 also looked like a one bid basketball conference. The fact that Banowski had also negotiated for St. Louis and Charlotte to have invites to the A-10 made it clear what the football schools still in C-USA expected us to do. Honestly, without a commitment to do football at the time, the A-10 was the best of many not so great options.

In trying to create a conference by only looking at the full membership (including football) schools of CUSA 2004, CUSA 2012, AAC 2013, and AAC 2020, we can use the "consistently there" schools (in 2+ of the iterations listed above) and remove any schools currently in a power conference.

That gives us:

AAC
West: Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Tulane, Southern Miss, UAB
East: Memphis, Cincinnati, Temple, East Carolina, Central Florida, South Florida

That gives us 7 schools from CUSA 1.0 + Houston (1996). East Carolina would jump on as football-only in 1997 and Tulsa, SMU, and Central Florida would come in 2005 when Cincinnati and South Florida leave.

Maybe it was a timing thing between when the Metro/Great Midwest were negotiating their merger and when the SWC found out they were losing their membership but perhaps it would have made more sense for Cincy/L’ville/Memphis/Tulane/USM to join the SWC rather than carry on with the merger.

I guess those 5 valued UAB/USF/Charlotte/St Louis/DePaul/Marquette more.

Had the SWC leftovers just added the Metro and Great Midwest football schools I imagine UAB would have jumped over to the Metro and the Metro would look a lot like the Sunbelt had:

UAB, Charlotte, VCU, VT, USF, WKU, USA (Maybe a few more)

While the Great Midwest would be your Catholic basketball league:

St Louis, Marquette, DePaul , Dayton (plus some friends)

(04-21-2020 11:01 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Maybe it was a timing thing between when the Metro/Great Midwest were negotiating their merger and when the SWC found out they were losing their membership but perhaps it would have made more sense for Cincy/L’ville/Memphis/Tulane/USM to join the SWC rather than carry on with the merger.

I guess those 5 valued UAB/USF/Charlotte/St Louis/DePaul/Marquette more.

Had the SWC leftovers just added the Metro and Great Midwest football schools I imagine UAB would have jumped over to the Metro and the Metro would look a lot like the Sunbelt had:

UAB, Charlotte, VCU, VT, USF, WKU, USA (Maybe a few more)

While the Great Midwest would be your Catholic basketball league:

St Louis, Marquette, DePaul , Dayton (plus some friends)

Saving the SWC was my first preference for UH after the Big-12 formation. The left behind schools could never reach a consensus on who to add (plus, due to all the NCAA violation tattling and realignment back stabbing---there wasnt a lot of trust in the room). The WAC was my second choice, as it was more football first and allowed the preservation of some SWC relationships. My least preferred course was CUSA. lol...probably lucky I wasnt in charge given how things went down with the WAC.

(04-20-2020 05:11 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  EAST C-USA
Army
Navy
Cincinnati
Louisville
East Carolina
UAB
USF
UCF
WEST C-USA
Memphis
Southern Miss
Tulane
Houston
TCU
Air Force
BYU
Boise St.

But since you said it can only be 12 I’d say

Army
Cincinnati
Louisville
East Carolina
Memphis
UAB
Southern Miss
Tulane
Houston
TCU
USF
UCF

(04-21-2020 11:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Saving the SWC was my first preference for UH after the Big-12 formation. The left behind schools could never reach a consensus on who to add (plus, due to all the NCAA violation tattling and realignment back stabbing---there wasnt a lot of trust in the room). The WAC was my second choice, as it was more football first and allowed the preservation of some SWC relationships. My least preferred course was CUSA. lol...probably lucky I wasnt in charge given how things went down with the WAC.

It seemed the WAC was the “safe” alternative because it had an established brand identity and ties to the Cotton and Holiday Bowls. Those bowl ties evaporated quickly.

In retrospect, we should have tried to hold onto the SWC. But weren’t the leading candidates back then programs like New Mexico, UTEP, Tulane, Memphis and Southern Mississippi?

(04-21-2020 11:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-21-2020 11:01 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Maybe it was a timing thing between when the Metro/Great Midwest were negotiating their merger and when the SWC found out they were losing their membership but perhaps it would have made more sense for Cincy/L’ville/Memphis/Tulane/USM to join the SWC rather than carry on with the merger.

I guess those 5 valued UAB/USF/Charlotte/St Louis/DePaul/Marquette more.

Had the SWC leftovers just added the Metro and Great Midwest football schools I imagine UAB would have jumped over to the Metro and the Metro would look a lot like the Sunbelt had:

UAB, Charlotte, VCU, VT, USF, WKU, USA (Maybe a few more)

While the Great Midwest would be your Catholic basketball league:

St Louis, Marquette, DePaul , Dayton (plus some friends)

Saving the SWC was my first preference for UH after the Big-12 formation. The left behind schools could never reach a consensus on who to add (plus, due to all the NCAA violation tattling and realignment back stabbing---there wasnt a lot of trust in the room). The WAC was my second choice, as it was more football first and allowed the preservation of some SWC relationships. My least preferred course was CUSA. lol...probably lucky I wasnt in charge given how things went down with the WAC.

The impression at the time was that UH thought it was above the other 3.

UH was one of the original 6, not a tagalong. Perhaps Cincinnati, Louisville and Memphis also thought they were above TCU/SMU/Rice.

UH did have a history in the MVC with those 3, not necessarily with Tulane and USM.

Before the Texas 4 left, there was discussion about Tulane, Memphis and/or Louisville joining the SWC.