CUSA Expansion targets: Temple, Tech, TCU

Wasn't temple a CUSA candidate back in 2004?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1L_dawg

Wasn't temple a CUSA candidate back in 2004?

---

Seems like they were, but did not want to leave the A-10 for other sports.

CUSA wanted only a full sports member, Temple only wanted to play football in CUSA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1L_dawg

Wasn't temple a CUSA candidate back in 2004?

---

Weren't they still in the Big East in 2004??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by domangue

Weren't they still in the Big East in 2004??

---

That's the year they were kicked out.

The Owls played as independents in 05-06, and joined the MAC the following year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DONW

This guy is definitely not a geography major. Iowa State in the east???

---

NO DOUBT!!!!!

But I do like the idea of a 6 mega conferences all becoming BCS worthy (no more Non-AQ crap)...
IMO...if they do form the mega conf it would create some stability in the college coaching ranks.... I know there will always be those schools with $$ and those without $$ and those with will always get what they want...but it's nice to know that a coach can do a job at a school and have an "equal" shot at a National Championship without worring about his school not eligable for any BCS love because their Non-AQ..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BOSTON

NO DOUBT!!!!!

But I do like the idea of a 6 mega conferences all becoming BCS worthy (no more Non-AQ crap)...
IMO...if they do form the mega conf it would create some stability in the college coaching ranks.... I know there will always be those schools with $$ and those without $$ and those with will always get what they want...but it's nice to know that a coach can do a job at a school and have an "equal" shot at a National Championship without worring about his school not eligable for any BCS love because their Non-AQ..

---

AMEN!

The problem is that the current aq programs are greedy. They know that some non-aq programs can catch up to them eventually and take some of the tv revenue. That is why they want to keep it an exclusive club.

Quote:

---

I think there's a larger chance of TCU landing in the Big 12 than going back down to CUSA

---

There is zero chance of TCU ending up in the Big 12 as long as Texas and Texas A&M are still there. Same goes for Houston, Rice, SMU, etc.

They bring nothing to the table that the horns and aggies don't already deliver. All they would do is take another slice of the pie (Tv revenue) and become another competitor for recruits. You level the playing field by letting them in. There's manuevering involved.

Reading that article, its easy to see why smaller conferences fail.
They're talking about expanding and making the conference stronger....but every step of the conversation is laced with comments about programs thinking of leaving the conference. Heck, even the chairman of the C-USA competition committee is waffling in every direction. How do you lead a conference....when you are one of the teams talking about bolting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DustyDog

To me, this "large market" vs. "small market" stuff is very misleading when it comes to college football. In reality, a given program's market has very little to do with how many bodies live within a certain radius of the football stadium. Cases in point: Rice and Auburn. Rice is located smack in the middle of the fourth largest city in the United States, yet very few in that "market" actually notice or care - thus, Rice is actually a "small market" team and apparently nothing is really going to change that. Now think of Auburn. They are located in Auburn/Opelika, AL - with a combined population of only 70,000 (less than Monroe/West Monroe). So they are a "small market" team, Right? No, they actually have a very large market. They key is that they draw a great deal of interest from their state and their region of the United States. (Even Alabama fans will watch Auburn on TV so they can cheer for the opposition). Therefore, they are actually a "large market" team.

While I am not comparing Tech's current market with that of Auburn, I am saying that Tech actually has a MUCH larger current, and potential, market than even our own administration has seemed to understand and capitalize upon over the years. The TV statistics have already proven that there is a large market for interest in Tech football. We are a statewide university - always have been - with a storied football program that is over a century old. The "Louisiana Tech" logo and brand is recognized all over the United States, thus we never have to explain who we are - college fans know who we are. When we are on TV, even the "casual" football from Louisiana will be at least somewhat interested in the game. This is also true for the radius of the surrounding states - and depending upon the opponent and magnitude of the game - the rest of the country as well. Therefore, as we continue to improve our "product" on the field, we are going to more fully realize the current reaches of our program's market. Moreover, we will continue to increase that share.

Louisiana Tech is a "large market" program.

---

+1000:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by olddog75

During the Pony Express days, SMU gave aot of tickets away to get butts in seats. SMU always runs a deficit in athletics.

---

So very true and so very amazing when you think about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tbone1

There is zero chance of TCU ending up in the Big 12 as long as Texas and Texas A&M are still there. Same goes for Houston, Rice, SMU, etc.

They bring nothing to the table that the horns and aggies don't already deliver. .

---

Total agreement.

Guys, I won't pretend to understand the market thing, won't even say I agree with it. But it is what it is. As long as TV tells us we need markets to maintain our TV dollars it will play a role in who we chose. It won't be the only factor, see Marshall.

The biggest thing I see Tech needing to do is increase attendance and budget. You can claim Sherveport but an average of 20,000 suggests that is not the case. I get blasted by fellow USM fans for saying this, but our AD is claiming our market is from Jackson to the Coast, from Mobile to New Orleans. If that were the case, we'd be selling out a 35,000 seat stadium every week.

You have to increase your budget. You can't say getting there will increase it, you have to show your fanbase has the commitment to get you there first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by olddog75

SMU always runs a deficit in athletics.

---

Don't know where you get that from, being a private school they seldom release figures for public consumption.

However if they do, they like Rice, have plenty of wealthy alums to fill in the gaps. Paying a football coach 2 million a year confirms it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoGold

Guys, I won't pretend to understand the market thing, won't even say I agree with it. But it is what it is. As long as TV tells us we need markets to maintain our TV dollars it will play a role in who we chose. It won't be the only factor, see Marshall.

The biggest thing I see Tech needing to do is increase attendance and budget. You can claim Sherveport but an average of 20,000 suggests that is not the case. I get blasted by fellow USM fans for saying this, but our AD is claiming our market is from Jackson to the Coast, from Mobile to New Orleans. If that were the case, we'd be selling out a 35,000 seat stadium every week.

You have to increase your budget. You can't say getting there will increase it, you have to show your fanbase has the commitment to get you there first.

---

Increase our attendance like Tulane and SMU???????? :laugh:

In all seriousness, our numbers should rise this year. The problem with our attendance (which has steadily increased) is that we play teams that are 3 time zones away. It is all us, instead of traveling fans from other schools. From what I have seen of how CUSA travels, WITH US, most of your schools will see an increase in attendance at YOUR games - from us. We travel very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoGold

Don't know where you get that from, being a private school they seldom release figures for public consumption.

However if they do, they like Rice, have plenty of wealthy alums to fill in the gaps. Paying a football coach 2 million a year confirms it.

---

"IF" they do???? You're joking, right?

The fact that SMU, like Rice, may have wealthy benefactors willing to stop-gap athletics doesn't change the fact that operationally, SMU, like Rice, runs huge deficits in athletics.