Jump to content

shaft

Members
  • Posts

    2,033
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4
  • Points

    0 [ Donate ]

shaft last won the day on November 23 2017

shaft had the most liked content!

About shaft

Profile Information

  • Home
    The Mean Streets

Recent Profile Visitors

3,501 profile views

shaft's Achievements

  1. I'm glad to see 6 posts could stay on topic. Pros: Regional plan dramatically lowers travel costs of all sports. This is basically the CUSA we were dying to get into back in 2005. Higher attendance, these are the regional rivals we had the best attendance with. This is our core recruiting base. Single time zone is better for our limited TV audience. Bi-annual trips to fun, drivable cities New Orleans & Memphis. Cons: Regional draws less national media attention. Overall less eyes balls on the conference (but as the ratings show us, its not like anyone is really watching AAC or CUSA games now).
  2. At the end of the day realignment (like bowl games) is about having a conference actually extend an invitation. In stead of the playing the endless "what if" game about how we would like realignment to be or what we think it's going to be. Let's break down each scenario one by one. Just the pros and cons of the scenario presented. Not a hypothetical A vs B. Let's start with the CUSA/ACC regionalization plan. Then we can give the expanded MWC and rebuilding AAC ideas there own threads. "The western conference would include SMU, North Texas, Rice, UTEP, Southern Miss, Tulane, Tulsa, Louisiana Tech, Wichita State, UAB, Memphis and UTSA. The eastern conference would feature East Carolina, Charlotte, Old Dominion, Temple, Marshall, FAU, FIU, South Florida, Middle Tennessee, Western Kentucky and two potential new additions."
  3. My heart's desire was to replace Baylor in the original Big 12. The regional proposal just makes the most most sense. Let's start new thread on just the pros and cons of the regionalization model as compared to the hypothetical F-M-K this thread has turned into.
  4. It's the opposite. By going public it forces the topic, instead of allowing Aresco to try to sweep it under the rug. My going public it forces the different school presidents to have these conversations with boards and ADs. By bringing in consultants who were commissioners of larger consultants it forces a pause for consideration. It's no coincidence that just the week before this letter is sent, Temple's president is on the record talking about travel costs and limits to conference realignment.
  5. More bad arguments, but at least this time you admit it just Green Kool Aide. MeanGreenTexan is just spouting the same green tinted lines we heard with the move from the SBC to CUSA. Putting all your eggs in the we're going to "move up" and get ranked is laughable.
  6. Good. We haven't been invited to go anywhere. The same dozen posters keep writing about the MWC like they have extended an invitation. Yet, there are no sourced articles out there, that says the MWC is even expanding. There is also no reason to assume we would be added to the AAC. Why add a team inside the same market as SMU? It's seems like they would take RICE and UTSA over UNT. RICE keeps a footprint in Houston and would be preferred by the ACC private schools. UTSA brings a new market and doesn't have SMU working against them.
  7. These are non-starters for the MWC vs a regionalized plan. Buzz = bullsh*t. There are no credible, sourced articles that say the MWC is expanding. Travel. Your comparison makes the point for regionalization. The fact the longest travel in the regional conference would be the same as the shortest in the MWC. It's the trips to coasts that are eliminated in a regional model. Media rights. I'll take the $250k revenue hit for the $1M travel savings any day. The AAC was forced renegotiation headed their way with the exiting teams. The diminished AAC deal is going to be comparable to a regionalized deal, which will be slightly higher than the current CUSA deal. Attendance. We haven't sold the thing out yet, so quit pretending we're just one good season away. The highest attended games are all against the biggest regional teams.
  8. The new regionalization plan. First there is no invite to the MWC. Second there are no signs of the MWC conference expanding into the Central Time Zone. Third, we tired the Big West it was a failure. Fourth, the travel times and costs don't make any sense. Now for the depleted AAC. Why would we pay exits fess and buy in fees for a conference which media rights about get tanked? Why pick up the added travel costs and times to go the east coast? What is the prestige of the depleted AAC to sell to recruits. The regionalized plan is the CUSA we wanted to get into 15 years ago. The regional plan is exactly the places we recruit, Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. I'll take the smaller footprint means savings and a better chances for the visiting team to help fill the seats. Our fans are more likely to travel to New Orleans and Memphis than any games on the East Coast.
  9. Because a regional conference makes sense. The AAC is going to take a media rights hit and adding 4 teams won't make a big enough difference. So it makes more sense to regionalize, get similar money to what the new AAC was going to get and significantly lower your travel cost and possibly increase your home attendance numbers.
  10. It's a simple choice for AAC members, would you rather be in a depleted AAC or a new regional conference? West: SMU, North Texas, Rice, UTEP, Southern Miss, Tulane, Tulsa, Louisiana Tech, Wichita State, UAB, Memphis and UTSA. East: East Carolina, Charlotte, Old Dominion, Temple, Marshall, FAU, FIU, South Florida, Middle Tennessee, Western Kentucky and two potential new additions (probably GA State and App State)
  11. https://www.si.com/college/2021/10/12/conference-usa-aac-realignment-football "The western conference would include SMU, North Texas, Rice, UTEP, Southern Miss, Tulane, Tulsa, Louisiana Tech, Wichita State, UAB, Memphis and UTSA. The eastern conference would feature East Carolina, Charlotte, Old Dominion, Temple, Marshall, FAU, FIU, South Florida, Middle Tennessee, Western Kentucky and two potential new additions."
  12. To be fair, no one should want to be matched with UL-Monroe. They need to get the NMSU treatment and get booted from D1.
  13. Here's a story from something called Saturday Blitz. https://saturdayblitz.com/2021/10/11/aac-football-realignment-mapping-out-new-conference/ It has no sources, and here is their CUSA proposal of: "SMU, Louisiana, UTSA, and Louisiana Tech would headline the new-look Conference-USA. ... Other teams that would comprise C-USA would be UTEP, North Texas, Rice, Tulsa, UL-Monroe, Texas State, and basketball only UT–Arlington." This looks like baseless speculation. Why a 10 team football division? Why wouldn't Tulane want to be in a division with RICE, SMU and TULSA? Why would a division include UTA for basketball and not also include WITCHITA STATE?
  14. New Southwest Conference South Division: Southern MISS, Tulane, UL-L, LA TECH, ARK ST, Memphis (if they stay) or UAB/USA West Division: UNT, SMU, TXST, UTSA, RICE, TULSA Ship UTEP to the MWC. Send UL-M to fcs.
  15. Regionalization is the way to go. There is a lot of merit to the proposal of a new Southwest conference. "Just one example of how this could work would be a 12-team Southwest league that would include these teams from Texas and Louisiana: Arkansas State, Louisiana, Louisiana-Monroe, Louisiana Tech, North Texas, Rice, SMU, Texas State, Tulane, UTEP and UTSA." This is a good starting pint. Just need to replace UL-Monroe with Tulsa.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.