No More MW / C-USA Merger

Not a no-brainer for the CUSA. What does LT bring to the table? Decent athletics, but talk about being from the boonies. Some of their bigger games have to be held 70 miles away in the metropolis of Shreveport.

I think I'd take Georgia St or Charlotte over LTech.

We are talking about a team that went 8-5, beat Ole Miss by 20 points, and beat Fresno State by 20 points. They ended up losing to TCU in their bowl game by a touchdown. Now I'm not saying they are the next LSU, but what I'm saying is that they are a football team on par with many in C-USA, and they would make good regional rivalries with teams like Southern Miss, UAB, Tulane, and Rice. And La Tech would certainly love to play some games where they could use a bus.

So yeah, that's a no-brainer to me. I know they aren't the NYC market, but C-USA's requirements for increasing tv revenue are not quite a BCS conference's requirements.

And your basing this on one season?
Since 1980, they've been to 4 bowl games. They are hardly a mid-major power.

there needs to be 2 leagues.
a Western Ath Conf and a Southern Ath Conf. no merger.

Any school north/west of texas that doesn't get a MBE invite goes into the WAC. Any school in SEC territory that isn't in a league above the NBE should join forces with CUSA.

NBE:
UConn/Ruty/Tem/Cincy/USF/UCF/Navy/Lville
UH/SMU/SDSU/BSU/AF/BYU/UNLV/Memphis

WAC:
Idaho/SJ/UNR/Hawaii/NM/NMst/Cst/Wy/Ust/UTEP/TS/Fresno/Tulsa

SAC:
NT/UTSA/Rice/Arkst/LaTech/ULM/Tulane/LL/WK/Smiss
UAB/SouthAL/MT/ECU/App/GAst/FIU/FAU/Mar/Troy

Anyway the point is, if your stuck in one of those leagues, its like a WAC in the SAC.

Who said they were a mid-major power? I just said that La Tech joining the C-USA was a no-brainer. There is no bashing here. It certainly makes sense for them, and it makes sense for C-USA. And the years before last year weren't too bad either, since they beat Mississippi State like 3 years ago, and I think they went to a bowl game about 2 or 3 years ago.

I guess I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what your point is. Are you saying that C-USA minus Houston, SMU, UCF, and Memphis is now too good for La Tech? Are you saying La Tech isn't good enough to be in a conference with Rice and UAB?? Let me know why you think there's a problem with my initial statement, so that I fully understand why you think it's so off the mark.

I said before somewhere that Idaho should move heaven and earth to get into the MWC, even if they are some kind of junior member. NMSU, Texas State and La Tech should join the Sun Belt or CUSA if they can. The MWC would accept Montana in a heartbeat. The MWC, MWC, Sun Belt and CUSA would all be sustainable leagues. The Colonial could be a wildcard, because I think all the top FCS programs on the east coast are going to petition to upgrade as a league.

Within 5-6 years, there will be a 16 team playoff. The mid-majors would do themselves a favor to position themselves in a way that 4 leagues would play for 2 automatic bids. The BCS would agree because that would eliminate any anti-trust risk, and maximize the number of at-large bids for the top conferences. In that world, there would be 6 automatic bids, 2 play in games, and 8 at-large. If the Big 12, SEC and Big 10 finish off the ACC, then there would be 5 automatic bids, 2 play in games and 9 at-large.

I'll play the devils' advocate: there are those who think the two premium BCS games played on New Years Day now are maxed out. Making it a National sem-final won't help raise ratings. The BCS Championship Game and its 22 share is maxed out. The new format is simply going to prove that out.

The CUSA doesn't _have_ to invite anyone. Every addition must generate enough revenue to cover the extra mouth to feed. It is hardly a no brainer.

I didn't say they_had_to_invite_anyone. I said it was a no-brainer. Meaning that their addition would help them generate revenue. It would help them generate regional interest. It would help them shorten travel distances for many of the teams in their conference. What's so hard to understand about that? Do you believe that it wouldn't be a net positive for their conference? If so, please state why. It's not enough to just say "an extra mouth to feed", since bringing in that team might help you feed the mouths you already have.

I think that you and perhaps others are viewing this through the eyes of a BCS conference. C-USA (and certainly a diminished C-USA) is not nearly a BCS conference. They don't generate tv revenues anywhere near the same ballpark. They don't need urban centers of 2 million people or more. They look for smaller victories, again, like saving many of their teams in their conference travel expenses (especially of full members, saving travel for all sports), expanding interest into different states or regions, and growing the quality of their on-field product. This move would accomplish all of that. Again......no-brainer.

Look, I don't want to sound like a know-it-all or a jerk, and maybe my posts on this issue are starting to come across as both, but I just want to illustrate my point:


In the above map, remove Houston, SMU, Memphis, and UCF (all to the Big East). Then put another blip slightly to the left of Houston, where UTSA has now been added to C-USA for 2013. You will see how La Tech (right on I-20, to the left of the words "southern miss") would be a great travel partner to Southern Miss, Tulane, Rice, UAB, and UTSA. It would also be reasonably close for Tulsa and UTEP. Marshall and East Carolina are more of the outliers, but I believe that C-USA will address that with possibly adding Charlotte. So to me, the location is perfect, the quality of the La Tech football is good for the conference, they are a good school from an academics point of view, and they are a recognized name. If I were the C-USA commissioner, they would have already had a call from my office.

Compare regular season ratings and ad revenue for football and basketball, and then compare the post season of the two sports. Football wins easily during the regular season, but gets dominated in the post season. There is a lot of upside left on football.

Just saying, but UTSA is SKYROCKETING. They should rename themselves the University of San Antonio.

Anyone who thinks that has their head up their arse.

Here's the real point: They are setting up a test scenario to see if its true. If the 4 team playoff turns in the same ratings as the current New Years games and the Current BCS Championship I think that will kill the momentum for adding another layer to the playoffs.

Here's the 2009 Ratings. If the 4 team series fail to provide better ratings I think a larger playoff is dead. Media won't need it. On what weeknight are you guaranteeing a better draw? December 26th? Opposite NBA on Christmas Day? Opposite the NFL in the heat of the playoff races?

The move to 4 teams in the playoffs is a power consolidation. Given the inbred scheduling system a BEor ACC team will never have a SOS good enough to make the playoffs if they go to 9-games and power conference scheduling like the BiG and PAC12..

2008-9 College Football Bowl Game National Viewers
BOWLNETWORKMATCHUPVIEWERS P2+% Change YAGO
BCS TITLE FOX OKLAHOMA/FLORIDA 26,767,000 16%
ROSE ABC PENN STATE/USC 20,603,000 8%
FIESTA FOX TEXAS/OHIO STATE 17,056,000 40%
SUGAR FOX UTAH/ALABAMA 13,369,000 14%
CAPITAL ONE ABC GEORGIA/MICHIGAN STATE 10,839,000 -27%
ORANGE FOX VIRGINIA TECH/CINCINNATI 9,319,000 -22%

Il'm trying to imagine the exicetment at ABC to pay top dollar for a UConn/Oregon Game on December 26 which will draw what? Better than the NFL? The NBA? The same as it would the lowest viewed BCS game? What will CBS put up against it? The Network premier of Hunger Games?

Football cannot recreate the craziness of March Madness. It's dysfunctional in that respect.

RIP WAC