Page 1 of 2
In hindsight.. we were better off staying put in the CUSA
Posted:
Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:16 pmby planoponyfan
When the whole super-conference mess was going on there was a lot of concern about what was going to happen if we stayed in the CUSA. Now.. it seems like a pretty good deal all things considered. The Pac 10 took the Big 12 down a notch, but couldn't kill it. The MWC isn't looking so good right about now. All things considered, the CUSA's stability through all this probably moves it up a notch. What do you think?
Re: In hindsight.. we were better off staying put in the CUSA
Posted:
Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:18 pmby StallionsModelT
Still WAY too many things have to shake out before we can say that staying CUSA was the right move. However, the last 24 hours have significantly weakened the MWC.
Re: In hindsight.. we were better off staying put in the CUSA
Posted:
Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:25 pmby Samurai Stang
Completely wrong.
SMU is now at the mercy of the MWC. If the MWC expands and takes UTEP and Houston, leaving behind SMU, then our profile is drastically decreased. Once again we find ourselves vulnerable.
The worst-case scenario is that the MWC loses BYU, while adding Nevada, Fresno State, UTEP, and Houston.
The best-case scenario is that the MWC loses both BYU and Air Force, leaving a twelfth spot that can be filled by SMU,.
Re: In hindsight.. we were better off staying put in the CUSA
Posted:
Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:37 pmby skyscraper
Why would you want to move to the MWC at this point?
Only reason previously was they were on the cusp of BCS auto-bid.
Now they're in the same boat as CUSA and WAC - not even close.
Realistically, if you're not even close for BCS auto-bid, you're better off playing a slate of conference games with schools you know and can travel to.
Re: In hindsight.. we were better off staying put in the CUSA
Posted:
Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:40 pmby StallionsModelT
Adding Houston and UTEP brings them no closer to BCS qualifier status and increases the travel costs and decreases the revenue sharing of the existing MWC schools. MWC should stay pat by adding Fresno and Nevada.
Re: In hindsight.. we were better off staying put in the CUSA
Posted:
Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:46 pmby Samurai Stang
skyscraper wrote:Why would you want to move to the MWC at this point?
Only reason previously was they were on the cusp of BCS auto-bid.
Now they're in the same boat as CUSA and WAC - not even close.
Realistically, if you're not even close for BCS auto-bid, you're better off playing a slate of conference games with schools you know and can travel to.
There are no schools in CUSA that are close to TCU and Boise State. Houston has an opportunity to associate itself with stronger programs.
There are more legitimate programs in the MWC that are trying to win than there are in CUSA. Associating yourself with stronger competition strengthens your own program.
Houston can and will leave behind the depths of CUSA.
Re: In hindsight.. we were better off staying put in the CUSA
Posted:
Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:49 pmby NickSMU17
Can you name 2 other teams outside of TCU and Boise trying to improve...
Air force can leave at any moment...all the cali school are barely surviving and have talked about cancelling football...
Re: In hindsight.. we were better off staying put in the CUSA
Posted:
Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:49 pmby Samurai Stang
StallionsModelT wrote:Adding Houston and UTEP brings them no closer to BCS qualifier status and increases the travel costs and decreases the revenue sharing of the existing MWC schools. MWC should stay pat by adding Fresno and Nevada.
And why should it do that? There is no reason to stay at ten teams, when one can have a championship game at twelve. This creates more revenue, bringing a gain to all conference members.
Re: In hindsight.. we were better off staying put in the CUSA
Posted:
Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:52 pmby WSGJ
Samurai Stang wrote:StallionsModelT wrote:Adding Houston and UTEP brings them no closer to BCS qualifier status and increases the travel costs and decreases the revenue sharing of the existing MWC schools. MWC should stay pat by adding Fresno and Nevada.
And why should it do that? There is no reason to stay at ten teams, when one can have a championship game at twelve. This creates more revenue, bringing a gain to all conference members.
Then why isn't the Big XII adding two then?
Re: In hindsight.. we were better off staying put in the CUSA
Posted:
Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:54 pmby Samurai Stang
NickSMU17 wrote:Can you name 2 other teams outside of TCU and Boise trying to improve...
Air force can leave at any moment...all the cali school are barely surviving and have talked about cancelling football...
I understand that the California schools are in a less than stellar position financially. Nevertheless, Fresno State and Nevada have both demonstrated a consistent desire to win.
Houston can join a conference that contains the elite non-AQ schools, as well as others that are admittedly at the other end of the spectrum. The difference between CUSA and the MWC is that while both conferences have weaker and stronger members, the strong MWC teams are competitive on a national level.
Re: In hindsight.. we were better off staying put in the CUSA
Posted:
Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:56 pmby Samurai Stang
WSGJ wrote:Samurai Stang wrote:StallionsModelT wrote:Adding Houston and UTEP brings them no closer to BCS qualifier status and increases the travel costs and decreases the revenue sharing of the existing MWC schools. MWC should stay pat by adding Fresno and Nevada.
And why should it do that? There is no reason to stay at ten teams, when one can have a championship game at twelve. This creates more revenue, bringing a gain to all conference members.
Then why isn't the Big XII adding two then?
BYU and Air Force are declaring independence in order to join the Big 12 in the future. In this way, both schools are forced to pay less to the conference.
The Big 12 is expanding by adding two. The path BYU and Air Force are taking is simply a less-direct route.
Re: In hindsight.. we were better off staying put in the CUSA
Posted:
Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:58 pmby ponyinNC
if BYU and AFA leave, I think we are certainly invited to MWC. Helps get the Mtn network on tv in dfw
Re: In hindsight.. we were better off staying put in the CUSA
Posted:
Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:59 pmby 03Mustang
From Coogfans.com...probably baseless rumors, but interesting nonetheless:
I'm hearing all kinds of stuff coming out of Dallas. My bud who is a financier-alum from SMU is telling me that the presidents of TCU and SMU had a meeting this morning along with their athletic directors. He told me in an email that he was trying to find out more but he was in and out of meetings all day and couldn't get into a lengthy telephone conversation. He sent me a message a minute ago telling me to "hold on...it could get whacky!"
Now, I have no idea what any of it means or whether or not it applies to us in even the remote sense but what the hell is going on out there???
Additionally, I have a friend who is a retail manager, graduate degree from TCU. He said his cell has been ringing off the hook today about TCU leaving the MWC.
Maybe just a bunch of speculation ....people panicky??
Re: In hindsight.. we were better off staying put in the CUSA
Posted:
Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:00 pmby Wuba
Samurai Stang wrote:StallionsModelT wrote:Adding Houston and UTEP brings them no closer to BCS qualifier status and increases the travel costs and decreases the revenue sharing of the existing MWC schools. MWC should stay pat by adding Fresno and Nevada.
And why should it do that? There is no reason to stay at ten teams, when one can have a championship game at twelve. This creates more revenue, bringing a gain to all conference members.
Only if the revenue gained from having a championship game is greater than the amout of revenue that would have to be shared with the 2 new members. I do not think that is always the case.
Re: In hindsight.. we were better off staying put in the CUSA
Posted:
Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:01 pmby ponyinNC
gotta love coogfans...everyone is an "insider".