Quote:
Originally Posted by parialex
Unless you're in the SEC, Big 12 or Big Ten, TV is TV, as far as I'm concerned. I think the CBS Sports channel is good, and will continue to get better.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by parialex
Unless you're in the SEC, Big 12 or Big Ten, TV is TV, as far as I'm concerned. I think the CBS Sports channel is good, and will continue to get better.
Another thing about the Houston market, it is very well known that it is a huge UT/A&M market. While DFW is also that, in addition they have supported TCU, but not so UNT. The reason is, of course, is winning, but also the level of competition coming in with the BYU's, Utah's, AFA, etc.
In Houston, because of the RICE factor, Uof H is a 'me too' school right now. Both have had their successes, but both have also had losing seasons which causes interest to wane. What Houston wants and needs, as I see it, is something to differentiate itself from RICE. Playing for the 'bucket' every year can still happen, but having Boise, Nevada, Fresno, AFA, Wyoming, Hawaii, etc., come in will excite the fans and also give them something that RICE doesn't have or can't offer. No one here gets excited about ECU, Marshall, UCF, UAB, Memphis (except for MBB) etc. any more. The biggest game on U of H's schedule for the last two years has been Texas tech by a long shot! Of course they are Big 12, but it is also something that RICE doesn't have.
As HD put it, TCU laid out the 'blue print', I believe that Houston is about to follow it.
TCU's blueprint was winning. Seven seasons of double-digit win totals the last 10 years, not including this year's 12-0 campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
I think TCU has done a great job scheduling over the years. Usually more difficult than Boise's, but never a murderer's row.
There are rumors that our going with C*USA rather than the WAC was not an affirmative choice on our part. The theory goes that our AD was busy with a pie-in-the-sky hope of getting into the SEC while the others were looking at the situation more practically. I am personally kind of skeptical of this, but a lot of people seem to believe it. If it's true, holy crap did we get lucky.
I think it's pretty helpful for us to be in the same conference as Rice, actually. Unlike TCU/SMU, we're very different schools. Nobody is going to get us confused. They don't take attention away from our program because we're the big school with the big alumni base and they're not. And in football we have a better track record and due to academics they are never likely to overtake us unless we fall hard (in which case, Rice will be the least of our problems). Further, being in the same conference as Rice frees up an OOC game since we'll keep playing them regardless of conference configurations. And on top of that, Rice is a great school. UH wants to become a better school (academically speaking). Being associated with Rice, SMU, and Tulane is not such a bad thing. Our calculations are different than TCU's were, as is the MWC that we'd be evaluating.
The sense I was getting from people I know who know people is that our interest in the MWC was pretty marginal even when TCU was still there (I think in part for fear that TCU would leave). Scott Campbell (Chronicle writer on all matters Coog) was even suggesting that we wouldn't be interested had BYU stayed (which I thought, at the time, would have been a mistake on our part).
Since I live in the Mountain West, I actually wouldn't mind too much if we did make the jump (I could make the trip to Boise!). I just doubt it's going to happen (in part because I think the MWC will stay where it is and in part because I think C*USA is a better deal for us).
It depends on what Houston fans mean by "a better deal for us".Quote:
Originally Posted by parialex
Do you EVER want Houston to join an AQ conference? If so, remaining attached to Rice is NOT going to get you there.
TCU was smart enough to know this, hence the Frogs bolted to the MWC the very same month SMU received its' invitation to CUSA. TCU understood that it needed to change the perception that they were just another small private school, like SMU, Rice, Tulsa, etc..... For TCU, "a better deal" meant joining an AQ conference, playing better competition, improving academically, and having a legitimate chance to win a NC every year.
TCU understood this. But the question now is, is Houston smart enough to understand it as well, if given the chance?
HD
I don't think we're really attached to Rice, though. With TCU, they were a smallish, private school in a conference division full of smallish, private schools (and us). Moving to the MWC was, among other things, a way to be differentiated from the other schools. For better and worse, we're in a conference division within which we don't have a whole lot in common with our schools. We've got (some of) the differentiation that TCU had to look westward for. We're one of only two public schools in our division and the other is 800 miles away. (It's for this reason, btw, that I think Houston would back LaTech over UNT. Even aside from performance, UNT is more of a "rival school" outside of athletics). It would be different if we were in a conference with UNT, Texas State, UTSA, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
That's what I meant by our calculations being different from theirs. SMU's calculations, for what it's worth, might make the MWC a more attractive option. The only real caveat I have in my personal preference for staying put is if they leverage SMU against us (I don't care if they take UTEP, so long as C*USA picks you and not UNT).
There are downsides to being where we are, with a bunch of smaller schools with limited alumni bases from which I know very few people and who generally look down on us (with borderline racist and class-based jokes). And it could prove to be a mistake if we do start having undefeated seasons but get left out of the BCS because of an undefeated MWC team. But I think the pros outweigh the cons in the overall.
If you're right and I'm wrong about this, I hope that the admin is smarter than I am. But from where I'm standing, we're looking at a bunch of schools from one or two timezones away and at different altititudes with whom there is even less local fan interest than our current lot. In an underrated and underappreciated conferences that doesn't have the AQ hopes that they did when TCU joined.
So anyway, that's where I'm coming from. And the impression I am getting from E. Cullen is that they are less anxious than I am to make the move. Time will tell if I am right about them and they are correct in their judgment. A lot of Coogfans think that I am not, they are not, or both.
(I tried to post this last night, but the latechbbb database wasn't responding)
MWC - I really think that they stay at 10. Having a conference championship game was never their priority. I think getting Hawaii was basically in preparation for losing TCU. The notion that they "have to respond" is less than entirely obvious to me. To keep Air Force happy, I suspect they stick to an 8-game conference schedule. Some of this depends on how things go with their TV renegotiations, though. Absent Houston/SMU, I am not sure any two teams would justify the splitting of the pie more ways. But, as always, I could be wrong.
Air Force - I don't think they go indy. Army and Navy are both close to a ton of schools. Air Force isn't. The teams in the conference are who they would likely want to play anyway. And they don't have the ambition that BYU and Hawaii do. On the other hand, they've already aligned with the other academies with TV packaging and if the three of them could bring in more money than MWC brings to AFA, I could be wrong.
Big 12 - Texas wants 10 teams. The north doesn't want to be segregated again. I don't see an overwhelming need to expand any time soon. Wait and see. If an undefeated UT or OU doesn't go to the national championship because of that missing game, they reconsider. Otherwise, just sit tight. If expansion occurs, they might look east to Louisville and Cincinnati rather than west to BYU for lack of a good "BYU and ____"
UTEP - I think it's 50/50 that they accept a MWC invite if offered. They draw great crowds when they do well and the MWC would be tougher than C*USA West to do well in. But being in the same conference as UNM has to be a draw, ditto the time-zone issue. My gut says they go, but that might just be wishful thinking on my part.
UNT - Man, they chose a really bad time to be a really bad team. As long as we have SMU, I don't think that they are a serious threat to replace a departing UTEP unless the beancounters determine that there's really value in doubling up on the DFW market. Has having two Houston teams helped? I really don't know. I just think you guys are better positioned, though I don't know how much of that might be wishful thinking on my part.
I can't see them not expanding. If you want to be considered equal, you have to have as equal of a sched as possible. Same number of "tough" conference games and a conference championship. That has been the knock on the Big 11 and Pac 10 until now. When they go to a champ game setup, the winner will get a lot more respect. Personally, I think that extra game late in the year did a lot to help the last 4 national champions, all SEC schools.
twssQuote:
Originally Posted by techman05
Ahh, but only if they win (Almost Texas 2009, Tennessee 2007*, Oklahoma 2003**, Texas 2001) and sometimes not even then (Auburn 2004). If the polls start punishing the Big 12 for lack of a championship game, then I imagine they will change their minds. But right now Texas and Oklahoma are thinking that a conference championship game just gets in the way. Ultimately, I think they are right about that. But time will tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
And there's a lack two particularly inviting candidates. And the pie would be split more ways.
* - Yeah, it was another SEC team that got in, but that was by sheer luck. Any other year a 2-loss LSU does not.
** - OU still got in, but the rules were changed and they won't next time.
To some of your comments , Parialex, the AirForce Academy has stated that they do not want more than 8 conference games (which means they probably won't stay at 10. The SDSU president has stated that they are looking at further expansion beyond Hawaii (which means that that invite probably won't be pulled off the table) and I believe that Rhodes and the crew on Cullen Street want away from the UAB's, Tulane's, Marshall's, etc. and would definately welcome playing AFA, Col State, New Mexico (especially in MBB) and the old WAC-ers - Boise & Fresno.
I have no inside information but I do know some people at one of the sports talk radio stations very well and there are discussions going on! They just don't know all the "T&C's" or the 'Players'! I think your administration is more forward thinking than you give them credit for. I sure hope ours is!
DFiH
When we started in the WAC there were 10 teams and 8 conference games. I remember winning the conference in 2001 and not playing Hawai'i which lead some to doubt if we could have done it playing them that year.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgFaninHous
I'm aware of Air Force's preference, but there's no reason you can't have 8 games with 10 teams. Until the Pac-10 went to 9 conference games, that used to be the norm. There's no reason to expand to 12 just to whittle conference games downward.
I'm also aware of the SDSU president's comments, though those were made when they had 11 teams. I think that the hope was that they get Hawaii, convince TCU, and then go to 12. With TCU gone, I think that going to 12 is a tougher sell. That's my perception, anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgFaninHous
Quote:
Originally Posted by parialex
As far as the conference championship game, I remember reading last summer that the Big XII coaches and AD's did not like having a championship game.
That was before Texas dropped off the map in football this year. :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by oledawg66