RE: Re: Conference Affiliations

[Brian Johnson]

Agreed, Carl and Keith, it's obviously money driven,
but would it be profitable for the conference overall
to maintain the far-reaching USM and TCU, or a USF
team that puts little apparent effort into their
athletics?

That's a lot of travel costs for the teams.  Plus, are
the fans of many of these schools rabid enough to
travel so far to a neutral site championship
game?That's why I believe it's important to maintain
the geographic proximity and avoid the sprawling mess
we have now.

--- Keith Wedinger <address@hidden> wrote:
> I can speak to the Big 10 situation.  There is a
> desire by some in the Big
> 10 to add a 12th team and to introduce a Big 10
> championship football game.
> Some teams thrown around in the past:  Notre Dame,
> Syracuse and Pittsburgh.
> If Notre Dame had accepted the overtures by the Big
> 10 a few years ago, a
> championship game would already be in place.  What's
> the motivating force?
> Well, it's money of course.  A Big 10 championship
> football game would
> easily sell out every year and draw a pretty nice TV
> broadcasting contract.
>
> J. Keith Wedinger 
> Senior Software Developer 
> Sterling Commerce 
>   
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Johnson [mailto:address@hidden 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 1:19 PM
> To: address@hidden; address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [UC Basketball] Re: Conference
> Affiliations
>
>
> I like everything about it, except for the inclusion
> of ECU, USF, USM and TCU.  These schools are either
> too geographically far-reaching, bring nothing to
> the
> table, or both.
>
> I've asked this before, and I guess I'll just have
> to
> keep asking it:  Why is having 12 teams and a
> conference championship such a priority?  The Big
> Ten,
> Pac Ten, and current Big East have done just fine
> without one.
>
> --- Bryan Sherman <address@hidden> wrote:
> > How about those UC/WVa match ups... :-)
> >
> > > I'd love that in football.
> > >
> > > jon b
> > >
> > >
> > > dfairchild wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes, you have identified the problem.  I am fine
> > with lopping of Houston
> > > > and
> > > > Tulane, but you are still left with bringing in
> 2
> > schools that have
> > > > football
> > > > programs.  I left Houston and Tulane because of
> > their TV markets.  I
> > > > think
> > > > if C-USA wants to move closer to BCS status - it
> > needs 12 fb teams so it
> > > > can
> > > > have a championship game - beyond the TV money,
> it
> > would help with
> > > > exposure
> > > > and recruiting.
> > > >
> > > > Adding Rutgers and UConn could be options
> > > > Cincy
> > > > Pitt
> > > > WV
> > > > Rutgers
> > > > U Conn
> > > > V Tech
> > > >
> > > > UL
> > > > Memphis
> > > > TCU
> > > > ECU
> > > > So. Fla
> > > > So. Miss
> > > >
> > > > How does that look for a fb conference?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: oleskl [mailto:address@hidden
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 11:25 AM
> > > > To: address@hidden
> > > > Subject: Re: RE: [UC Basketball] Re: Conference
> > Affiliations
> > > > > FB members
> > > > > Cincy
> > > > > UL
> > > > > Memphis
> > > > > V Tech
> > > > > Pitt
> > > > > WV
> > > > > TCU
> > > > > ECU
> > > > > So. Fla
> > > > > Houston
> > > > > So Miss
> > > > > Tulane (New Orleans TV market)
> > > > >
> > > > > for basketball keep Marquette and DePaul
> (chicago
> > TV market)
> > > > > so long Army, Charlotte, St. Louis and UAB
> > > >
> > > > You say we can lop off some of the bottom
> feeders
> > but yet you keep Tulane
> > > > and Houston in the conference. Houston's
> athletic
> > department is in a very
> > > > bad money situation right now, reportedly not
> able
> > to even pay for
> > > > scholarships and Tulane is facing a vote to give
> > up their Div 1 status
> > > > due
> > > > to financial restraints. Charlotte, St. Louis
> and
> > UAB have hardly been
> > > > bottom feeders in basketball.
> > > >
> > > > oleskl
> > > > e-mail: address@hidden
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> http://search.yahoo.com


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com