With Middle Tennessee State and Western Kentucky staying put, it looks like Conference USA will have survived this round of realignment.

The latest move puts them at 9 members, as they were able to add 4 teams to backfill the 9 lost to the AAC and Sun Belt.

Current members: UTEP, New Mexico State, LA Tech, Western Kentucky, Middle Tennessee State, Liberty, Sam Houston State, Jacksonville State, and FIU.

Gotta give 'em props for pulling off a "Big-12" type of move, as they managed to stabilize the conference after chaos reigned.

While the Sun Belt is 'potentially' on the rise, I think the other G5's might regret letting C-USA hang around.

Had the MWC acted quickly and invited UTEP and NMSU, then WKU and MTSU probably move to the MAC without hesitation. And with only LA Tech and FIU left, C-USA would've been toast.

The feet dragging (by the MWC and MAC) allowed C-USA to gain reinforcements, and now there are still 5 G5 conferences, instead of 4.

While C-USA isn't a great conference by any stretch, the new additions are respectable/beneficial to the remaining members, and might still give the Sun Belt a run for their money down the road.

If I'm Marshall and Southern Miss, I'd be having second thoughts about leaving, as it might be in their best interest to stay and keep from having to cough up exit fees.

Also, if we're being honest about the Sun Belt, only App St is reliably solid. The jury is still out on whether UL or Coastal Carolina will have sustained success.

So the CUSA commish has a sock account here?

I really dont understand why the Mountain west wouldnt want the MSU and UTEP. It sets a good border on the eastern part and they solidify themselves as the best in the west of G5.

RustyShack said:

---

So the CUSA commish has a sock account here?

---

He's just staying in touch with Baylor for the next round of conference shuffle
Thanks

Every time I read about conference realignment I can't help but think of this article I read on ESPN back when the first 4 teams left the big 12 for the SEC, B1G and Pac 12. It was a good article that was all tongue in cheek but basically it said just create one mega conference with all 120 teams (what there were at the time), then divide them into "leagues "(I think that is what he called them) and he separated the teams out and then further split them up into "divisions" but all part of the same conference.

The end result was what the conferences looked like at that time with the original big 12, SEC, PAC, etc.

His other idea was basically one giant P5 conference and a second division of football for all the non p5 schools that was essentially like the FBC/FCS split just only the blue bloods at the top which is what he said felt like was happening and seems to be coming true more and more.

How many FBS teams are there now - 200???

Jack Bauer said:

---

How many FBS teams are there now - 200???

---

130, but close!

atomicblast said:

---

I really dont understand why the Mountain west wouldnt want the MSU and UTEP. It sets a good border on the eastern part and they solidify themselves as the best in the west of G5.

---

I think they view it as form of market duplication. They already have the University of New Mexico who is New Mexico's flagship university. NMSU and UTEP are competitors and recruiting rivals to New Mexico. New Mexico would want to keep them down. When looking at potential additions, the MWC needs larger cities and population bases. El Paso by itself isn't going to cut it for UTEP, and the MWC may feel they already control that city.

For Texas access in the past, the MWC has looked at UNT, TCU, SMU, UTSA, Rice, and Houston. They have had plenty of opportunity to add UTEP if the MWC thought UTEP brought something to the table. But that hasn't happened.

It is unfortunate though, because NMSU and UTEP should really be in the MWC. It solves a lot of geographical problems for everybody else. But conference realignment doesn't happen because schools want to give others a leg up.

And sadly, that is a problem.

As I alluded to in a separate post, the Mountain West is being a bit presumptuous if they believe a huge market is going to just fall into their lap. And even then, it may not have the impact they are looking for if that market has to be shared by other schools/conferences (ie. DFW).


The benefit of adding UTEP/NMSU would be that you would essentially corner that market, as those two schools are the only games in town (Las Cruces is just 45 miles away from El Paso).

There is a bit of short-sightedness being exhibited by these conferences who choose not to shore up and dominate their regions first.

For example - DC and NYC will never be Big Ten towns. Instead of being greedy and adding Rutgers and Maryland, you could make a strong argument that adding Louisville, Kentucky, and Cincinnati instead would have been more beneficial to the conference's long-term standing.

Such a move would have solidified the conference's hold on the Ohio River Valley and State of Kentucky, and created more heated rivalries in conference (even though this is primarily tied to football - the basketball matchups would have been sick, when you throw Indiana into the mix).

An intense, passionate, regional rivalry tends to bring more nationwide eyeballs to TV sets, regardless of location (see Alabama/Auburn, Michigan/Ohio State, etc.).

Rutgers/Nebraska just isn't gonna cut it for the casual or hardcore fan.


No one is saying you want to help a school become better than yours. But at the same time, their improvement could ultimately improve your brand/reputation just by association.

In the case of UTEP/NMSU, I think New Mexico benefits from their improvement/success.

And hopefully that pushes you to become even better to stay ahead of them.

LTBear19 said:

---

And sadly, that is a problem.

As I alluded to in a separate post, the Mountain West is being a bit presumptuous if they believe a huge market is going to just fall into their lap. And even then, it may not have the impact they are looking for if that market has to be shared by other schools/conferences (ie. DFW).


The benefit of adding UTEP/NMSU would be that you would essentially corner that market, as those two schools are the only games in town (Las Cruces is just 45 miles away from El Paso).

There is a bit of short-sightedness being exhibited by these conferences who choose not to shore up and dominate their regions first.

For example - DC and NYC will never be Big Ten towns. Instead of being greedy and adding Rutgers and Maryland, you could make a strong argument that adding Louisville, Kentucky, and Cincinnati instead would have been more beneficial to the conference's long-term standing.

Such a move would have solidified the conference's hold on the Ohio River Valley and State of Kentucky, and created more heated rivalries in conference (even though this is primarily tied to football - the basketball matchups would have been sick, when you throw Indiana into the mix).

An intense, passionate, regional rivalry tends to bring more nationwide eyeballs to TV sets, regardless of location (see Alabama/Auburn, Michigan/Ohio State, etc.).

Rutgers/Nebraska just isn't gonna cut it for the casual or hardcore fan.


No one is saying you want to help a school become better than yours. But at the same time, their improvement could ultimately improve your brand/reputation just by association.

In the case of UTEP/NMSU, I think New Mexico benefits from their improvement/success.

And hopefully that pushes you to become even better to stay ahead of them.

---

I'd watch a UTEP/NMSU rivalry game anyday over a Rutgers/Nebraska nothingburger

contrario said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

How many FBS teams are there now - 200???

---

130, but close!

---

133 with the recent additions of James Madison, Sam Houston State, and JSU.