Topic: HZ: Herd Fans Should Embrace `New' C-USA

[_sturt_]

Adding to the content of the thread...

Back in January, there was talk coming from Banowsky that he was working on a proposal for a Go5 playoff. We haven't heard much of anything since then... probably because AAC and MWC recognize that a playoff compromises their superior position. But it is telling that Banowsky went public to the extent that he did, in that, it inherently puts it out there that he realizes that we can't be passive and content... that we need to be prepared to do things differently than we've ever done them if we're to be competitive over time.

From January...

"Our view is, in this world if you're not collaborating with people, you're not performing at your optimum," Banowsky said. "I'm a collaborator. I like to collaborate with television people, I like to collaborate with my conference colleagues and I like to collaborate with bowl folks to try to put us in a place where we can grow our business together."

...and this from December...

We all just have to know that we have a responsibility to our own conferences. Each institution has a responsibility to their institution. But we’re also part of a bigger system. And it’s important for us to occasionally think, “How has the system improved and what can we do to make the system better?”

Banowsky and Benson are interested in bringing back some semblance of order. Separately, they’re exploring the idea of consolidating at least some of the schools in what is being called the “Group of Five” non-power conferences — C-USA, Sun Belt, Big East, MAC and Mountain West — into a mini-playoff structure, with the winner gaining the automatic berth to one of the three “host” bowls (most likely the Fiesta, Cotton and Chick-fil-A) in the new BCS format.

Banowsky’s plan is for four eight- or nine-team leagues grouped geographically, with the champions meeting in semifinal games on Thanksgiving weekend and the winners playing a week later.

There are complications, such as who makes the cut to 32 or 36 teams — more than 60 schools will be in the Group of Five — and whether schools would have to revert to an 11-game regular season, which would mean a loss in revenue. A similar proposal two years ago to merge C-USA and the Mountain West in football failed to materialize.

“It’s pretty complex and unorthodox,” Banowsky said. “And it’s my sense that most folks are more comfortable in approaching things in a more traditional way. But I also think it would bring a pretty interesting package to the marketplace.”

________________________________________________________________

Time-proven (since our 2005 admission to CUSA) rules for perennial contention for the top Go5 spot
#1: Play in one of the best conferences.
#2: Lose no more than one game in a season.
#3: Play at least one top 25 team.

#4: Be honest enough to ascend to all three, not just one or two.

[_sturt_]

The difference between these leagues is de minimis.  Same access.  Same money.  Same exposure.  Winning is what will separate teams in the Group of 5.  If you're in the MAC & go 12-0 & win your league, odds are you'll get a huge bowl game.  If you're in the AAC or CUSA and go 11-1 or 12-0 & win your league, odds are you'll get the big bowl game.  We're all fighting for the same thing.  

As said earlier...

Given the history that has accumulated since 2005 (our entrance to CUSA), the evidence says the essential ingredients to PERENNIAL success for 2013 and beyond are... not one of these, not two of these, but you must hit on 3 of 3.

1. Play in a strong conference.
2. Do not lose 2 games.
3. Play at least one top 25 team.

What you're proposing is that, in the pursuit of actually winning the right to participate in the major bowl slot--ie, being that top non-AQ/now-Go5 team... "winning takes care of everything"... essentially, 2 only.

The only recent example of that is 2008 Ball State... weak conference, lost one game, played zero top 25 teams. Reached #12 in BCS in final week... notably, right behind a #11 team from the MWC with not one but two losses... before proving they deserved to come in 4th place in the race, in spite of their 12-1 record overall that featured breath-taking out-of-conference wins over Northeastern, Western Kentucky, and Indiana, all of which finished the year with Sun Belt-like Sagarin ratings, none ranked higher than #125 overall... and an 8-5 Navy (71 rating, #51 rank).

What we actually find is... winning DOES get you into the BCS top 25 in a single year.

So, SA, you can be happy. Congrats.

Those of us looking for something better... those of us looking for actually achieving that top rank, and putting ourselves in a position to do that year after year after year... are not (happy).

1. Play in a strong conference.
2. Do not lose 2 games.
3. Play at least one top 25 team.

THREE of three.

If you're in a conference whose equivalency to the P5 conferences is a step below ACC... as we are... you might be able to have the occasional fortuitous season when you push a team into contention with other G5 schools.

But  the conferences whose equivalecies to the P5 conferences are SEC (AAC) and Big XII (MWC) are the ones who are positioned to actually achieve that top slot... they will not merely aspire to push someone into contention, but as long as they continue to not lose 2 games (as they have) and to play at least one top 25 team (as they have)... they will dominate, and the rest will wait patiently in eager anticipation of an outlier year.

[SuperAnjario]

Will someone please explain how Marshall's position would improve in any measurable way if we joined the AAC tomorrow?

There are three really exciting/major things that fans hope happens with conference re-affiliation:

1.  Large money increase through more TV/Bowl contracts.  In the case of the AAC, neither happen.  The money they got for TV is embarrassing.  I'm surprised they didn't fire their commissioner on the spot when it was announced.  He failed completely.  His attempt to lure NBCSports into the mix failed because NBC refused to up ESPN's match during renegotiation.  In the end, they got stuck with a bare bones ESPN deal for little money with games mostly on weeknights.   The bowl situation, after this year, is essentially the same for the AAC and CUSA.  In fact, we will share 2-3 bowl games, and possibly more in the future, with the AAC.

The money factor is the most significant aspect of this analysis.  When teams jump from, say, the Mountain West to the Big 12 (TCU), it essentially changes the way their athletic department can do business.  TCU (an already wealthy school that already had a top 10 football budget through private donations, by the way) went from a conference distribution of 1 million to a conference distribution of over 20 million (I'm approximating).  It's like hitting the lottery.  It completely changes how an athletic budget can be formulated.  The AAC move brings none of this.  It's essentially the same TV and bowl money.  These teams  can't change their athletic budgets.  So, in Marshall's case, joining the AAC does nothing for us.  We'd be in the EXACT same position we're in now.  We'd just keep playing a few teams most of our fans care nothing about (see section 3).  We couldn't change our athletic budget.  In fact, travel would INCREASE compared to the more regional friendly new CUSA (not to mention we'd be in the same position we were in from 2005-2012 regarding inability/difficulty of our fans to travel to away games). 

The MOST important point is this:  Whatever differences existed from 2005-2012 between Marshall and the teams that left exist because of enrollment (for example, UCF has one of the largest student populations in the nation; it's easy to tax 50k+ students a little money to increase an athletic budget), facilities, location, and perceived academic strength.  These differences still exist (probably minus the somewhat large gap regarding football facilities at this point due to our large investments), BUT THEY DON'T EXIST BECAUSE OF CONFERENCE AFFILIATION.  Changing conferences didn't change any of these teams' positions.  Joining the AAC wouldn't change our position.  Joining a league that would actually allow us to increase our athletic budget would change our position.  However, what will change our position that we can control is working to raise our athletic budget, increasing enrollment, and winning.

2.  Exposure increase.  Once again, in the case of the AAC, this doesn't happen.  As mentioned above, have you looked at the AAC's television schedule?  It's CUSA's circa 2005.  A few Friday night games sprinkled in with other mid-week affairs.  Argue about ESPN exposure all you want, but CUSA's teams (EVEN THE ONES THAT JUST LEFT) absolutely pitched a GIANT FIT about midweek games when we moved away from ESPN.  The dirty secret is the creation of FoxSports1 is going to improve CUSA's exposure.  We're already slated to appear on FS1 twice with a probable third appearance on FS2 or FS1 (FIU game).

3.  More desirable opponents.  Yet again, outside of UC, a team that may slightly move the needle, this doesn't happen in the AAC for us.  We've already tried bringing these teams to Huntington.  It impacted our attendance at a rate of about 0%.  Winning and losing is what matters in Huntington outside of bringing in truly marquee opponents.  No team from CUSA, including ECU and UCF, moves the needle in Huntington.  We drew 33k for Kent, 30k for Akron, and 31k for Toledo in 2003.  Why?  Because we were coming of winning seasons.  Would anyone call Kent and Akron desirable opponents?  No.  Our fans care about winning more than anything else, just like EVERY SINGLE OTHER FAN BASE IN THE WORLD.  None of the CUSA/AAC teams have any drawing power to significantly increase our attendance if we're not winning. 


I know it hurts sometimes to get turned down at the bar.  However, what do we do when that happens?  Go out the next night and try again.  This is all this AAC/CUSA situation is. 

This is about the 5th time I've gotten into this debate.  It's obvious that some of you just have a different opinion.  That's fine.  On that note, I'm going to move on to looking forward to watching this extremely well-constructed team play this year.  Our over/under projected regular season wins according to beyondthebets.com is 9.5.  That's exciting.  Phil Steel has us projected to go to the Liberty Bowl. 

[whf]

Super,  we will see how close you are to the correct facts when it is out turn to re-negotiate all those financial matters.  If there is no difference in what we get and what the AAC got, you'll be correct.  If there is a reasonable less result for us you'll be wrong.  Several of us are hoping we are made to be 100% wrong when the results are like the AAC; I for one don't think they are going to be. 

I am afraid of what we continue to lose, not what we have lost to date.

And I do agree, as I have said before, it is time to move on. The ship has sailed and we are left standing on the dock.  If ODU, Charlotte and UTSA will help our attendance I will be glad to say I was / am wrong. 

[_sturt_]

Will someone please explain how Marshall's position would improve in any measurable way if we joined the AAC tomorrow?

The question assumes that it's still an option. It is not. But as long as you want to go there...

There are three really exciting/major things that fans hope happens with conference re-affiliation:

1.  Large money increase through more TV/Bowl contracts.  In the case of the AAC, neither happen.  

True.

But then, you of course avoid the other side of the equation... which is, the majority of the schools now in our conference have not even made MAC money in TV contracts previously... and what, because they're now allied with us, UAB, So Miss, Rice and UTEP, that somehow changes their outlook? If FAU and FIU couldn't muster enough Miami audience to be meaningful to their Sun Belt contract, pray tell how money will suddenly grow from trees in CUSA 3.0?

We're insulated, of course, from the fall-out by virtue of the defectors having to make-up the difference in our next contract. Yes, that's indeed very nice for the short term. It does not do anything good for the long-term.

The money they got for TV is embarrassing.  I'm surprised they didn't fire their commissioner on the spot when it was announced.  He failed completely.  His attempt to lure NBCSports into the mix failed because NBC refused to up ESPN's match during renegotiation.  In the end, they got stuck with a bare bones ESPN deal for little money with games mostly on weeknights.   The bowl situation, after this year, is essentially the same for the AAC and CUSA.  In fact, we will share 2-3 bowl games, and possibly more in the future, with the AAC.

It's this kind of remark that separates the people who are casual observers from the ones who are actually paying attention.

AAC's commish was Marinatto. He got Boise and SDSU in the boat. Then, he left and was replaced by a seemingly-highly-regarded TV exec in his own right, Aresco. To suggest that they should have fired the guy they just hired, and pretending that the market forces that produced a CUSA 2.0 contract were not the same forces that birthed the AAC contract... that Aresco somehow should have been able to better pit NBC/Comcast against ABC/ESPN... is like me criticizing the finer nuances of how a ballet stage director does his/her job... completely uneducated and, well, silly.

2.  Exposure increase.  Once again, in the case of the AAC, this doesn't happen.  As mentioned above, have you looked at the AAC's television schedule?  It's CUSA's circa 2005.  A few Friday night games sprinkled in with other mid-week affairs.  Argue about ESPN exposure all you want, but CUSA's teams (EVEN THE ONES THAT JUST LEFT) absolutely pitched a GIANT FIT about midweek games when we moved away from ESPN.  The dirty secret is the creation of FoxSports1 is going to improve CUSA's exposure.  We're already slated to appear on FS1 twice with a probable third appearance on FS2 or FS1 (FIU game).

I wouldn't pretend to be an expert on this, so I appeal to a known expert...

http://www.herdfans.com/12thman/index.php?topic=69289.msg545799#msg545799

Simply, I've seen the breakout of the particular package in question, and while "light" on money, the exposure breakdown is quite impressive......

3.  More desirable opponents.  Yet again, outside of UC, a team that may slightly move the needle, this doesn't happen in the AAC for us.  We've already tried bringing these teams to Huntington.  It impacted our attendance at a rate of about 0%.  Winning and losing is what matters in Huntington outside of bringing in truly marquee opponents.  No team from CUSA, including ECU and UCF, moves the needle in Huntington.  We drew 33k for Kent, 30k for Akron, and 31k for Toledo in 2003.  Why?  Because we were coming of winning seasons.  Would anyone call Kent and Akron desirable opponents?  No.  Our fans care about winning more than anything else, just like EVERY SINGLE OTHER FAN BASE IN THE WORLD.  None of the CUSA/AAC teams have any drawing power to significantly increase our attendance if we're not winning.  

So... you start with "more desirable opponents," but then you go on to... interestingly... NOT make the case that we're getting more desirable opponents. Your point, instead, is that what matters most is winning. I don't deny that winning is fundamental. But again the incoherency is what stands out.

Moreover, the whole attendance thing is peripheral. You don't measure national appeal by local attendance. I really don't care so much whether we average 2-3K more so much as I care whether we're pulling good TV numbers that support national advertising dollars that eventually end up in the AD's budget, instead of all of the commission-based ads for ear-wax removers and water hoses.

Bottom line remains unscathed...

In order to achieve perennial success in this new environment, we need to

1. Play in a strong conference.
2. Lose no more than one game in a season.
3. Play at least one top 25 team.

And to accomplish #1, we have to be willing to innovate and collaborate.

[GreenBison60]

I love this new CUSA much better than the old one. There will be many more rivalry games and more games to travel to. The basketball side will be as good or better from the start. And i really believe in 5-10 years Football will be better than what we had. I am excited about having MTSU, ODU, UNCC W Kentucky and Louisiana Tech on the basketball side from the start. And those teams will really grow in ftb and surpass most that left in time IMO. They all have a good fan base and are excited about where they are headed. GO HERD!!!!!

[SuperAnjario]

I was going to step away, and I do find some of Sturt's post mildly offensive (The commissioner the AAC hired is awful and I don't care what DShoe says about him, the AAC, or ESPN.  I also firmly stand behind the point I made about how his attempts to negotiate the contract were below par.), but I wanted to share this:

Here's the top 20 attended games in the history of Marshall (last year's OU game is somewhere in the top 5 or so and is not included):

1. 41,382 ........West Virginia 24, Marshall 21 Sept. 10, 2010
2. 40,383 ........West Virginia 48, Marshall 23 Sept. 8, 2007
3. 36,914 ........Kansas State 21, Marshall 19 Sept., 10, 2005
4. 34,424 ........Virginia Tech 30, Marshall 10 Sept. 24, 2011
5. 33,537 ........Marshall 49, Kent State 33 Oct. 11, 2003
6. 33,204 ........Marshall 31, Miami (Ohio) 17 Oct. 3, 1998
7. 33,116 ........Marshall 24, New Hampshire 23 Sept. 7, 1991
8. 32,900 ........Marshall 26, UCF 21 Sept. 20, 2002
9. 32,106 ........Montana 22, Marshall 20 Dec. 16, 1995*
10. 32,034 ........Marshall 37, Bowling Green 31 Sept. 29, 2001
11. 32,012 ........Marshall 27, Ohio 0 Nov. 15, 1997
12. 31,768 ........Marshall 34, Rice 21 Oct. 27, 2007
13. 31,511 ........Marshall 17, Toledo 24 Sept. 12, 2003
14. 31,304 ........Marshall 31, Youngstown State 28 Dec. 19, 1992*
15. 31,042 ........Marshall 50, Appalachian State 17 Aug. 31, 2002
16. 30,419 ........Marshall 51, Miami (Ohio) 31 Nov. 11, 2000
17. 30,225 ........Marshall 63, SE Missouri St. 7 Aug. 31, 2002
18. 30,203 ........Marshall 38, Toledo 13 Oct. 14, 1999
19. 30,194 ........Marshall 34, Temple 0 Sept. 25, 1999
20. 30,128 ........Marshall 48, Buffalo 14 Oct. 23, 2004

How many CUSA opponents are on the list?

P.S.  No one has explained how joining the AAC would put us in a better position yet.  Also, the point isn't that the new CUSA gives us better opponents.  The point is that joining the AAC (look at prior attendance data taken from games against 7-9 of the teams from the AAC) doesn't affect our attendance in any way.  The main point is that the three factors that a fan hopes to achieve by joining a conference are ABSENT in a move to the AAC. 

[_sturt_]

GB60, to say I love the neighborhood now that some of the better to-do neighbors moved out and were replaced by some lesser to-do, but certainly enthusiastic neighbors... is a stretch. I'm okay with them. But then, to say that I accept the neighborhood as-is... is equally inaccurate.

I want us to be better, and we're not going to get there by wishing for it or by locking arms and singing kum-bah-yah or by throwing ourselves a parade.

Too many of you guys are now outright MAC fans in CUSA clothing... I mean, in this very thread (and of course others), there are those who, like MAC fans, trumpet the virtues of winning a conference and not giving a ratzass about anything higher than that.

That's a form of blasphemy compared to the self-respect that we had for ourselves previously. It's not a fan base that is any more worth associating with than Miami or Ohio... nauseatingly low ambitions. Disturbing.

We need to reclaim our identity. Fans can't win games, but if we're going to allow this ambition void to take hold, we can surely usher in the demise of our football program. Top recruits want to be part of something greater than winning a #4 Go5 conference title. If fans aren't going to ascend to that, you're going to get the leftover recruits.

[_sturt_]

I was going to step away, and I do find some of Sturt's post mildly offensive (The commissioner the AAC hired is awful and I don't care what DShoe says about him, the AAC, or ESPN.  I also firmly stand behind the point I made about how his attempts to negotiate the contract were below par.), but I wanted to share this:

Thank you, Mr. Ballet Director. You obviously are so well-read on these things.

Here's the top 20 attended games in the history of Marshall (last year's OU game is somewhere in the top 5 or so and is not included):

1. 41,382 ........West Virginia 24, Marshall 21 Sept. 10, 2010
2. 40,383 ........West Virginia 48, Marshall 23 Sept. 8, 2007
3. 36,914 ........Kansas State 21, Marshall 19 Sept., 10, 2005
4. 34,424 ........Virginia Tech 30, Marshall 10 Sept. 24, 2011
5. 33,537 ........Marshall 49, Kent State 33 Oct. 11, 2003
6. 33,204 ........Marshall 31, Miami (Ohio) 17 Oct. 3, 1998
7. 33,116 ........Marshall 24, New Hampshire 23 Sept. 7, 1991
8. 32,900 ........Marshall 26, UCF 21 Sept. 20, 2002
9. 32,106 ........Montana 22, Marshall 20 Dec. 16, 1995*
10. 32,034 ........Marshall 37, Bowling Green 31 Sept. 29, 2001
11. 32,012 ........Marshall 27, Ohio 0 Nov. 15, 1997
12. 31,768 ........Marshall 34, Rice 21 Oct. 27, 2007
13. 31,511 ........Marshall 17, Toledo 24 Sept. 12, 2003
14. 31,304 ........Marshall 31, Youngstown State 28 Dec. 19, 1992*
15. 31,042 ........Marshall 50, Appalachian State 17 Aug. 31, 2002
16. 30,419 ........Marshall 51, Miami (Ohio) 31 Nov. 11, 2000
17. 30,225 ........Marshall 63, SE Missouri St. 7 Aug. 31, 2002
18. 30,203 ........Marshall 38, Toledo 13 Oct. 14, 1999
19. 30,194 ........Marshall 34, Temple 0 Sept. 25, 1999
20. 30,128 ........Marshall 48, Buffalo 14 Oct. 23, 2004

How many CUSA opponents are on the list?

P.S.  No one has explained how joining the AAC would put us in a better position yet.  Also, the point isn't that the new CUSA gives us better opponents.  The point is that joining the AAC (look at prior attendance data taken from games against 7-9 of the teams from the AAC) doesn't affect our attendance in any way.  The main point is that the three factors that a fan hopes to achieve by joining a conference are ABSENT in a move to the AAC. 

Wow... really? Digging yourself a bigger hole? SA, my friend, it was YOUR words, not mine... that we would have "more desirable opponents"... yet you continue to bash away at a strawman that no one made. Should have, at least, come back with either an admission of the incoherency or addressing how the new opponents will, indeed, boost attendance.

[SuperAnjario]

Sturt:

You fundamentally misunderstand my first post.  You're making stuff up, insulting me, and not reading what I'm posting.  I NEVER ARGUED our opponents in new CUSA are better or more attractive.  Never.  I argued that joining the AAC WOULD NOT give us better opponents and would not change our attendance.  The argument is that when teams change conferences one of the reasonable expectations is that they'll receive, in return, better opponents.  That absolutely would not happen if Marshall joined the AAC.  I'm not arguing the new CUSA opponents are better. I'm arguing that it's a complete wash.  In fact, I'm arguing that every aspect of a move to the AAC is a wash from Marshall's perspective.  Our position would not change.

You've yet to respond to any of my arguments with actual, well, argument.  Instead, you boastfully call me names.  Maybe that's how you win debates in your world. 

Enjoy having this thread to yourself.  I enjoy discussing all things Marshall, and I do sometimes enjoy your posts, but I won't continue to be insulted and engage with someone that acts like a little kid.  You seem to really enjoy debate.  I admire that.  A word of advice for you though:  if you learn to not take it so personally and actually respond with argument, facts, and data, instead of insults and hurbris, you'll become a better debater. Goodbye. 

[GreenBison60]

Sturt it would be great to be in the Pac, Big 10, ACC but it isn't going to happen. Talk about someone wishing or hoping? You are in lala land. Now if you don't think this CUSA will be as good as the one last year, you are in lala land again. And our new "neighbors" as you say....aren't nasty looking dirty scum bags that never mow their grass or bath. But they are young neighbors starting out that is excited about their new house and have plans of making it bigger and better on the ftb side. Like i said, i LOVE WKU, ODU, MTSU, UNCC, LT and i am very excited about those teams and the close rivalries that brings especially in BB. It's hard to get excited about SMU, Tulane, Houston IMO. Take those Texas teams and good riddance as for as i'm concerned. And i like these teams also much better than the MAC teams we used to play. I AM PUMPED for these new schools. JMO!!!!

[_sturt_]

Sturt:

You fundamentally misunderstand my first post.  You're making stuff up, insulting me, and not reading what I'm posting.  I NEVER ARGUED our opponents in new CUSA are better or more attractive.  Never.
  I argued that joining the AAC WOULD NOT give us better opponents and would not change our attendance.  The argument is that when teams change conferences one of the reasonable expectations is that they'll receive, in return, better opponents.  That absolutely would not happen if Marshall joined the AAC.  I'm not arguing the new CUSA opponents are better. I'm arguing that it's a complete wash.  In fact, I'm arguing that every aspect of a move to the AAC is a wash from Marshall's perspective.  Our position would not change.

You've yet to respond to any of my arguments with actual, well, argument.  Instead, you boastfully call me names.  Maybe that's how you win debates in your world.  

Enjoy having this thread to yourself.  I enjoy discussing all things Marshall, and I do sometimes enjoy your posts, but I won't continue to be insulted and engage with someone that acts like a little kid.  You seem to really enjoy debate.  I admire that.  A word of advice for you though:  if you learn to not take it so personally and actually respond with argument, facts, and data, instead of insults and hurbris, you'll become a better debater. Goodbye.  

1. Not sure where I called you a name (?!?).

Rather, I asserted that to criticize the AAC commish seems uninformed under the circumstances... then I laid out, well, "actual argument" that explained those circumstances.

2. I feel like I'm in that AT&T commercial with the adult and the little kids... (pardon me if that's offensive, but actually it isn't--the point of the commercial is that practically anyone of any age understands that better is better...) but if we were in AAC... and we won't be, but if we were... we'd be in one of the two top-tier conferences in Go5, positioned to compete annually to go to the Orange Bowl or Cotton or Fiesta... on national television against a name opponent... THAT is better than where we are right now... like the commercial makes the point... it's just not that hard to understand.

Talk all you want about local attendance... I've never raised that as an argument, and indeed, I completely agree with the idea that WKU, MTSU, ODU and Charlotte are going to be great for attendance both ways...  talk all you want about TV exposure... you have your opinion, DShoe has his... talk all you want about TV contract money... but don't set aside the rational conclusion that long-term, it cannot be helped that the divide between us and AAC is going to look a lot like the divide between CUSA 2.0 and Sun Belt or MAC money...

Talk all you want about any of that...

Bottom line remains...

We can't aspire to the AAC at this point.

But we can aspire to put ourselves in a position to compete with AAC (and MWC) for the national attention that comes from annually being in the race for the top Go5 slot... and the big money that comes from actually achieving that... but we can only do that if we're willing to be innovative and collaborative.

We need to be in a top conference... we need to lose no more than one game... and we need to play at least one top 25 opponent (which, is decidedly more likely when you play in a conference that has enough quality that one of your opponents could legitimately be that).

SA, in conclusion... I don't know you, you don't know me... all we're doing here is talking about sports. It's not going to matter to the actual important things of life... how you take care of your family, or how I take care of mine... I've been one of the first to say that we ought to be able to be adults and just talk sports... I mean no personal attack, but I do mean to attack your assertions that I disagree with... to me, there is a clear distinction... if you offer up, as you did previously, that the AAC commish ought to be fired, I'm saying that that is about like saying Obama... like him or not, and I personally find myself most typically in the "not" category... that Obama should've been removed from office immediately after he failed to rescue the economy from its 2008 demise... that's just not a seemingly intelligent assertion to make... even if the assert-er is ordinarily intelligent.

[_sturt_]

Sturt it would be great to be in the Pac, Big 10, ACC but it isn't going to happen. Talk about someone wishing or hoping? You are in lala land. Now if you don't think this CUSA will be as good as the one last year, you are in lala land again.

Earth-to-lala-land... please give me ANY quantifiable measure that tells you that CUSA 3.0 will be as good as CUSA 2.0.

I've done the math. More than anyone on this board, I bring numbers to my arguments. That much can hardly be disputed.

And our new "neighbors" as you say....aren't nasty looking dirty scum bags that never mow their grass or bath. But they are young neighbors starting out that is excited about their new house and have plans of making it bigger and better on the ftb side.

No disagreement on that.

We must bloom where we're planted.

The mistake is to assume that you can be satisfied with the status quo and put yourself in a position to bloom.

We cannot.

The three ESSENTIALS to said blooming:

1. Play in a top tier conference.
2. Don't lose more than one game per season.
3. Play at least one top 25 team.

How do we play in a top tier conference when we're in the #4, or even at best, #3 conference?

Have to be innovative, and willing to do some things that are outside the norm, though within the parameters of NCAA regs.

As demonstrated in Banowsky's quotes above.... your/our own commissioner recognizes the situation for what it is, and has spoken of it publicly. You can be supportive... as he is, of course, and as I've become... of the new neighbors... but don't let that blind you to the need to innovate and think about how we can structurally put our schools in a better position than they have at the moment.

[iherdya]

Earth-to-lala-land... please give me ANY quantifiable measure that tells you that CUSA 3.0 will be as good as CUSA 2.0.

All you've done is used numbers that fit your argument as a method to attempt to predict the future.

[_sturt_]

All you've done is used numbers that fit your argument as a method to attempt to predict the future.

In other words, I'm using historical results as a basis for projecting what we should expect in the future.

Hmmmm... ever hear of something called "scientific method?"

Maybe I'm making it out to be more than it is, but seems once mankind figured out that history is the best predictor of future results, seems we've done quite well for ourselves.

[Buffalo Bop]

The emphasis was on growth and television markets. FIU (48,000 students), North Texas (36,305) UT-San Antonio (30,474), FAU (30,000), Charlotte (26,232) and Old Dominion (24,753) are up and coming schools with growing enrollments. Among the departing members, only UCF (59,490), Houston (40,747) and East Carolina (26,900) had larger enrollments.

As for television markets, six of the eight largest markets in C-USA will belong to first-year members.

Besides, although conference reconfiguration was football-driven, the updated Conference USA will be stronger in basketball than the old version.

You can add MTSU (about 26,000) to that list too. This is why I think in the long term, C-USA is going to be even better. The upside is exciting. The Commish sums it up:

"Our deal is to be the conference that really represents the next generation of great programs," Banowsky said. "We target large markets, generally. We target growth markets. We find universities that have their best ahead of them in terms of potential, that have invested in facilities, that are gearing up and getting ready to go, and then we give them a stage and a platform to participate."

That last remark is important: Middle Tenn went 8-4 and stayed home in the 'Belt. That won't happen in C-USA.

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/sports/x1489432505/A-look-at-changes-to-college-athletics
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/21605066/cusa-introduces-new-look-and-work-might-not-be-done-yet

[iherdya]

In other words, I'm using historical results as a basis for projecting what we should expect in the future.

Hmmmm... ever hear of something called "scientific method?"

Maybe I'm making it out to be more than it is, but seems once mankind figured out that history is the best predictor of future results, seems we've done quite well for ourselves.

Except football is a game where even the best minds can rarely predict the future. Phil Steele is widely regarded as one of the best, last year in the preseason he had Alabama #5, Notre Dame #16. The Top 10 in the final AP rankings and Phil's preseason ranking:

1. Alabama #5
2. Oregon #6
3. Ohio State #11
4. Notre Dame #16
5. Georgia #8
6. TAMU Unranked
7. Stanford #18
8. South Carolina #23
9. Florida #10
10. Florida State #1

On average about 8.5 spots off, so a professional that puts basically an unlimited amount of time in researching the past to predict the future was way off with college football, but yet we're supposed to take your "research" and "predictions" as fact?

Seriously, you throw a lot of numbers out there, you cherry pick, and you throw out crazy, and not so crazy, predictions and hope one or two stick so you can exclaim you were right all along, while totally ignoring the parts you'll get wrong.

The facts are the AAC provides Marshall nothing significantly more than CUSA will provide us over the next few years.

[wasbarryb]

Except football is a game where even the best minds can rarely predict the future. Phil Steele is widely regarded as one of the best, last year in the preseason he had Alabama #5, Notre Dame #16. The Top 10 in the final AP rankings and Phil's preseason ranking:

1. Alabama #5
2. Oregon #6
3. Ohio State #11
4. Notre Dame #16
5. Georgia #8
6. TAMU Unranked
7. Stanford #18
8. South Carolina #23
9. Florida #10
10. Florida State #1

On average about 8.5 spots off, so a professional that puts basically an unlimited amount of time in researching the past to predict the future was way off with college football, but yet we're supposed to take your "research" and "predictions" as fact?

Seriously, you throw a lot of numbers out there, you cherry pick, and you throw out crazy, and not so crazy, predictions and hope one or two stick so you can exclaim you were right all along, while totally ignoring the parts you'll get wrong.

The facts are the AAC provides Marshall nothing significantly more than CUSA will provide us over the next few years.

Rather like the world of investing where every recommendation is preceded with the cautionary phrase "Past performance is no assurance of future results."

[_sturt_]

You can add MTSU (about 26,000) to that list too. This is why I think in the long term, C-USA is going to be even better. The upside is exciting. The Commish sums it up:

"Our deal is to be the conference that really represents the next generation of great programs," Banowsky said. "We target large markets, generally. We target growth markets. We find universities that have their best ahead of them in terms of potential, that have invested in facilities, that are gearing up and getting ready to go, and then we give them a stage and a platform to participate."

That last remark is important: Middle Tenn went 8-4 and stayed home in the 'Belt. That won't happen in C-USA.

There's no argument... we did the best we could do... albeit, Banowsky and/or the CUSA presidents jumped the gun and had that not happened, the Big East orphans would have had no better choice than to come to CUSA for shelter... but these were the best that Sun Belt and WAC had to offer.

Let's make the best of it.

But let's not be so big-headed as-if the CUSA brand is so grandiose that it's going to make 9 sub-MAC schools... (well, okay... make that 8, b/c La Tech has been pretty solid in many years...) very suddenly more appealing nationally...

The opposite is the reality... we're now part of a conference that wears a diminished brand name because the majority of its schools have never been on a true national stage in D1 football.

Moreover, let's be real enough to understand... like our commish understands... that we can't sit on our hands and expect to be anything more than a southern MAC... and that it's going to get pretty tedious to watch our former peers in the AAC and MWC schools year after year after year grabbing the holy grail, appearing in a featured primetime major bowl game, while we get the thrill of playing in something like the GoDaddy Bowl.

[_sturt_]

Rather like the world of investing where every recommendation is preceded with the cautionary phrase "Past performance is no assurance of future results."

Exactly.

And so, perhaps you'd prefer to go with your gut rather than reading a prospectus... or, worse, looking up Morningstar ratings?

herdya... we're talking tendencies, not specific results here... you know that... surely?!?

More rationally and to the point... can I predict that LSU will win the national championship in a specific year? Nah. But that's ignoring the real point.

Can I be fairly certain that an SEC school, if not two, will be competitive for the title in any given year?

Yeah. Absolutely.

The message is that we need to put ourselves in the best possible position to compete for the best possible prize, given our Go5 placement.

No arguing that... unless you're one of those who would say, "Win CUSA and I am satisfied. Whether we ever get to be that one team or not."

If that's your perspective, go join your friends in places like Athens and Miami please.

[iherdya]

Irregardless of what anyone says, the name of the game is winning. It doesn't matter who you play, just win. The late 90's Marshall is an example of that, Boise State is an example of that, last year's NIU team is an example of that. You don't have to play in a tough conference, you don't have to play a tough non conference schedule, you just have to win the games on the schedule and you'll get your due...

[MarshallSteve]

I love the new look of CUSA. I think that after a few years, we will all realize that CUSA is the place for us to be. We have some great schools in great locations that our fans can travel to. They can have the AAC....I like it right where we are. I"d put my money on schools like ODU, La Tech, MTSU over schools like Tulane, Temple, or SMU any day.

[_sturt_]

Except football is a game where even the best minds can rarely predict the future. Phil Steele is widely regarded as one of the best, last year in the preseason he had Alabama #5, Notre Dame #16. The Top 10 in the final AP rankings and Phil's preseason ranking:

1. Alabama #5
2. Oregon #6
3. Ohio State #11
4. Notre Dame #16
5. Georgia #8
6. TAMU Unranked
7. Stanford #18
8. South Carolina #23
9. Florida #10
10. Florida State #1

On average about 8.5 spots off, so a professional that puts basically an unlimited amount of time in researching the past to predict the future was way off with college football, but yet we're supposed to take your "research" and "predictions" as fact?

Seriously, you throw a lot of numbers out there, you cherry pick, and you throw out crazy, and not so crazy, predictions and hope one or two stick so you can exclaim you were right all along, while totally ignoring the parts you'll get wrong.

The facts are the AAC provides Marshall nothing significantly more than CUSA will provide us over the next few years.

Cherry pick?

You want to cite A SINGLE YEAR of rankings... and... SPECIFIC TEAMS.... and yet, ***I'm*** the cherry picker?

Right. Okay.

*rolls eyes*

My friend, I'm talking in terms of trends. Please get that. You're talking one year. I'm talking a decade. You're talking selected schools. I'm talking entire conferences.

Thank you wasbarry for your post... it truly is helpful to think of this in terms of stocks and mutual funds.

No, we can't know how General Electric will do in 2013.

But we can be much more certain that, based on the... *ahem*... history of a Vanguard PrimeCap Core Fund... that over the next 10 years, the stocks in that portfolio... and GE might be one of them... are going to do better than others.

(Dontcha just hate it when you bring up an analogy, and it works for the other side of the argument better than your own? Yep. Sucks. It happens.)

[iherdya]

Cherry pick?

You want to cite A SINGLE YEAR of rankings... and... SPECIFIC TEAMS.... and yet, ***I'm*** the cherry picker?

Right. Okay.

*rolls eyes*

My friend, I'm talking in terms of trends. Please get that. You're talking one year. I'm talking a decade. You're talking selected schools. I'm talking entire conferences.

Thank you wasbarry for your post... it truly is helpful to think of this in terms of stocks and mutual funds.

No, we can't know how General Electric will do in 2013.

But we can be much more certain that, based on the... *ahem*... history of a Vanguard PrimeCap Core Fund... that over the next 10 years, the stocks in that portfolio... and GE might be one of them... are going to do better than others.

(Dontcha just hate it when you bring up an analogy, and it works for the other side of the argument better than your own? Yep. Sucks. It happens.)

I could go back and pull several years, but unlike you, myself and the vast majority of people on this bored aren't obsessed with the topic to the point they've become the laughing stock of the board.

[_sturt_]

Yeah... you could... but why bother.

As long as others will accept your subjective posts as fact, no need to line-up any facts to support your claims.

And the laughingstock thing is meaningless. Either bring substance or don't.