|
|
I would like a group of schools to look to the future, bite the bullet on the basketball credits for a couple of years, and form a new regional conference. There is a great conference just waiting to emerge in our neighborhood if some schools have the stones to make it happen.
With a few additions, they would be close to the same footing. You have to stop thinking in terms of what things look like now and what they COULD look like. The old WAC didn't work because they were inept at managing it and the teams they chose could not carry their market. Put some former AQ teams and other teams that CAN carry their market, try for AQ, and get a lucrative TV deal and you are talking about a different story.Originally Posted by Lilfido
Nobody in the SEC is in any trouble.Still safe bet that no one in the SEC will get the boot. I see growth, but not replacement.
Oh, I agree..... Guess my bigger point is that even those who could expect to be "safe" from the fallout are feeling the uneasiness......
I mean......
WORST CASE: WHAT IF the letting us keep our cowbells one more year is going to turn into our consolation prize in a booting?
BEST CASE: More humongous schools with more humongous budgets to try to compete against...... A&M is ok, but you'll be hard pressed to find an MSU-er who is excited about playing Texas. Alabama is plenty enough ego for us, thanks.....
BEST OF THE BEST: No changes at all in the SEC. Just let us have our cowbell ...
As for you guys.... I'm pulling for you to be in CUSA....... :icon_wink:
champion110;928131]With a few additions, they would be close to the same footing. You have to stop thinking in terms of what things look like now and what they COULD look like. The old WAC didn't work because they were inept at managing it and the teams they chose could not carry their market. Put some former AQ teams and other teams that CAN carry their market, try for AQ, and get a lucrative TV deal and you are talking about a different story.[/quote
Sounds beautiful but you see you have that problem of regents and fan that turn their nose up and schools that they feel are beneath them. They don't want certain schools in the conference no matter how much it might help or make sense. They don't even want to hear talk about it. Sound familiar? That same attitude that some of our board members have towards sunbelters are showed towards us from schools in larger conferences. Kansas, Missouri, or even Baylor wouldn't even want to entertain the discussion of playing in a conference with schools like us. I'm no fan of the Sunbelt but I absolutely deplore the attitude that a great many on this board show towards that conference. An arrogance like no other is shown here and for what? Sure we have great achievements and I'm proud as hell of them but there are many schools that have done so so much more with a better attitude at that. Boise comes to mind. They are a class act on and off the field. Perhaps if we could display a better attitude towards schools are just like us, maybe we could enjoy a little of that karma. Think on it.
Oh, I agree..... Guess my bigger point is that even those who could expect to be "safe" from the fallout are feeling the uneasiness......
I mean......
WORST CASE: WHAT IF the letting us keep our cowbells one more year is going to turn into our consolation prize in a booting?
BEST CASE: More humongous schools with more humongous budgets to try to compete against...... A&M is ok, but you'll be hard pressed to find an MSU-er who is excited about playing Texas. Alabama is plenty enough ego for us, thanks.....
BEST OF THE BEST: No changes at all in the SEC. Just let us have our cowbell ...
As for you guys.... I'm pulling for you to be in CUSA....... :icon_wink:
MSU is safe and no one gets booted. Very small chance that Vandy jumps to the Big 11, but that would be the only subtraction that I could see. It is going to be interesting to see what the SEC does, especially if the Pac 10 adds a sixpack.
i believe you will see two large conferences out of what were three......wac, mwc and b12
I just don't see the TV money for an expanded C-USA. There isn't a single team you can throw at it that would constitute a significant upgrade in bargaining power at the TV table.
Even the best case scenario (C-USA), if they could land Kansas, still wouldn't be enough bargaining power to drive a strong TV deal. It might increase some, but not enough to make it beneficial once you split it 16 ways.
It will not be about an increase in tv money for conferences such as CUSA - it will be about decrease of expenses amongst the members
Only the MWC could possible see an increase in TV dollars amongst the non-AQs
''Don't be a bad dagh..."
Ask Boise about Idaho.......
This Lilfido guy is eager eagle or Salty.Ask Boise about Idaho.......
And that is why you wont see a non-AQ conference expand beyond 12.
Thank you, Captain Obvious!!!
HD
Thank you, Captain Obvious!!!
HD
That is not so obvious to some of your buddies. I've seen many posts of CUSA to 16 and MWC to 16 nonsense.
Dwayne, I don't understand the thought process that suggests that a league would expand without expecting an increase in TV dollars.
By expanding, you have to split the current money 4 more ways.
Instead of Tulane getting 1/12 of the pie....they would now get 1/16 of the pie.
That pie better get considerably bigger or the move is futile.
However, I still think we have a legit shot at a C-USA invite due to a couple of teams being courted by the BigEast
Teatech....is that you?????
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
