Question regarding UTSA and other possible CUSA defections

[meangreen11]

Wouldn't UTSA have to get Board of Regent approval to exit C-USA and also be required to pay exit fees?  And don't they and UTEP share the same BOR as the flagship?  And won't UT have to pay some nasty exit fees soon if they wish to move over to the AAC or any other conference?  I just think it needs to be stated that these secondary system schools have a distinct disadvantage when it comes to switching conferences.  They also have extreme limitations in regards to fundraising as they will always be considered secondary to the flagship when it comes to cultivating the biggest donors.  Would think UAB has some issues in that particular regard as well.  Is the Alabama BOR going to approve them spending millions in buyout fees to move to a conference that has already been poached of its best teams and will most certainly lose more in the coming weeks as well? 

As far as them being hot in football or whatever, they could easily lose their coach to a P5 and end up with another Frank Wilson. 

These conference commissioners are making big dough, like 400-500K salaries and car allowance etc.  They will do whatever they can to continue doing that for as long as they can.  So they will put ANY deal together that buys them more security and more years of great compensation.  That is the only thing that concerns me about all this is that the conference commissioners are looking after themselves and their staff more than the schools they represent. 

[outoftown]

7 minutes ago, meangreen11 said:

Wouldn't UTSA have to get Board of Regent approval to exit C-USA and also be required to pay exit fees?  And don't they and UTEP share the same BOR as the flagship?  And won't UT have to pay some nasty exit fees soon if they wish to move over to the AAC or any other conference?  I just think it needs to be stated that these secondary system schools have a distinct disadvantage when it comes to switching conferences.  They also have extreme limitations in regards to fundraising as they will always be considered secondary to the flagship when it comes to cultivating the biggest donors.  Would think UAB has some issues in that particular regard as well.  Is the Alabama BOR going to approve them spending millions in buyout fees to move to a conference that has already been poached of its best teams and will most certainly lose more in the coming weeks as well? 

As far as them being hot in football or whatever, they could easily lose their coach to a P5 and end up with another Frank Wilson. 

These conference commissioners are making big dough, like 400-500K salaries and car allowance etc.  They will do whatever they can to continue doing that for as long as they can.  So they will put ANY deal together that buys them more security and more years of great compensation.  That is the only thing that concerns me about all this is that the conference commissioners are looking after themselves and their staff more than the schools they represent. 

UAB definitely had these problems. It is essentially what led to disbanding a program that was actually doing fairly average financially compared to its G5 brethren, maybe better than average.

But since the desinbandonment they managed to turn this around in a major way and kind of forced the system to also invest in them. Helps that U Birmingham academically is not really less important than Tuscaloosa in some areas arguably way ahead.

The black balling in the UT system is probably not at the level it was in the Alabama system, but I think you are right that it does at least slightly complicate things.

[ChristopherRyanWilkes]

The usual college football hierarchy is state flagship > land grant or secondary flagship > prestigious private school > city school (ie Louisville, Cincinnati, Houston etc.) > regional or directional school (North Texas) > system school (UTSA, UAB). I’m surprised UTSA and UAB is getting this much attention from the AAC honestly. 

[Mean Green 93-98]

17 minutes ago, outoftown said:

UAB definitely had these problems. It is essentially what led to disbanding a program that was actually doing fairly average financially compared to its G5 brethren, maybe better than average.

Everything else about your post is largely correct, but to be clear...UAB was absolutely awful in football until the year they decided to disband the program.  They hadn't hit .500 in the preceding 10 seasons, going 3-9, 3-9, and 2-10 in the 3 immediately preceding seasons.  If they hadn't hired Bill Clark who provided a glimmer of hope that year they shut down, I doubt they would have been able to resurrect their program.

[All About UNT]

23 minutes ago, ChristopherRyanWilkes said:

The usual college football hierarchy is state flagship > land grant or secondary flagship > prestigious private school > city school (ie Louisville, Cincinnati, Houston etc.) > regional or directional school (North Texas) > system school (UTSA, UAB). I’m surprised UTSA and UAB is getting this much attention from the AAC honestly. 

UAB makes sense to me... but not UTSA

[Mean Green 93-98]

24 minutes ago, ChristopherRyanWilkes said:

The usual college football hierarchy is state flagship > land grant or secondary flagship > prestigious private school > city school (ie Louisville, Cincinnati, Houston etc.) > regional or directional school (North Texas) > system school (UTSA, UAB). I’m surprised UTSA and UAB is getting this much attention from the AAC honestly. 

I'm not sure about your hierarchy.  Penn State and Ohio State are both land grant schools.  The Ivies are the most prestigious private schools you'll find.  USC is a directional school and UCLA is a system school.  I suppose it might often work in the order you lay out, but I can't imagine a conference considering those major factors when deciding what schools to invite.

[outoftown]

15 minutes ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

Everything else about your post is largely correct, but to be clear...UAB was absolutely awful in football until the year they decided to disband the program.  They hadn't hit .500 in the preceding 10 seasons, going 3-9, 3-9, and 2-10 in the 3 immediately preceding seasons.  If they hadn't hired Bill Clark who provided a glimmer of hope that year they shut down, I doubt they would have been able to resurrect their program.

Oh, I wasn't talking about on field success. That was indeed- as you said mostly aweful in the decade prior to disbanonment. Partly a function of getting starved for funds and renovations by the BOR I would think. The donor and spectator numbers etc however was fairly in line with what a G5 is supposed to be, despite what the BOR did. I think NT fans can appreciate the difference between finances and potential on one hand and on field product on the other.

You probably are correct about the importance of clark for ressurecting the program.

Edited October 4, 2021 by outoftown

[MeanGreenTexan]

Just now, Mean Green 93-98 said:

I'm not sure about your hierarchy.  Penn State and Ohio State are both land grant schools.  The Ivies are the most prestigious private schools you'll find.  USC is a directional school and UCLA is a system school.  I suppose it might often work in the order you lay out, but I can't imagine a conference considering those major factors when deciding what schools to invite.

Nitpicking you 93-98, but USC would fall in the 'prestigious private school' part of his hierarchy before the 'regional/directional school' part.
Of course, there are going to be exceptions to every rule, but for the most part, I think I agree with CRW's assessment.   I think UTSA is getting so much love for 2 main reasons, and one reason will only get stronger if they continue winning.   
1 - recent football success.  Their team is keeping their name on people's mind.
2 - being a system school in a huge market (kinda like your UCLA mention, but more comparable to UNC-Charlotte who's name is also being bantered around).

[ChristopherRyanWilkes]

6 minutes ago, Mean Green 93-98 said:

I'm not sure about your hierarchy.  Penn State and Ohio State are both land grant schools.  The Ivies are the most prestigious private schools you'll find.  USC is a directional school and UCLA is a system school.  I suppose it might often work in the order you lay out, but I can't imagine a conference considering those major factors when deciding what schools to invite.

That's why I prefaced with "usually," but Penn and Ohio State are both their State's flagship and land grant schools. Ivies don't sponsor FBS football. USC is a prestigious private school, not a directional, which means a public school comprised of mostly commuters maybe in or near a major metropolitan area. California is a bit of an anomaly because they fund their system schools pretty evenly compared to Texas for example.

It certainly factors into reputations. It took this long to get a directional school into a P5, and Louisville was the first city school in one only starting several years ago.

[keith]

1 hour ago, meangreen11 said:

These conference commissioners are making big dough, like 400-500K salaries and car allowance etc.  They will do whatever they can to continue doing that for as long as they can.  So they will put ANY deal together that buys them more security and more years of great compensation.  That is the only thing that concerns me about all this is that the conference commissioners are looking after themselves and their staff more than the schools they represent. 

The conference commissioner answers to the board of directors of the conference (presidents of the member universities).  So while there may be some self-preservation motives for the commissioners, they ultimately have to make the BoD happy.  I imagine it's probably a political mine field keeping all the personalities and desires of the BoD satisfied.  The BoD should ensure that the actions taken by the commissioner (and approved by the board) is in the best interests of the schools they represent.