NCAAbbs

Nice new article I just found on the WAC board about UTEP joining C-USA.

wvgazette.com
April 22, 2004
UTEP in the right direction
Miners have plenty to offer if accepted into C-USA

By Doug Smock
Staff writer

If the University of Texas at El Paso does hook up with Conference USA, it will bring the league more than another time zone.

The Miners would carry a seven-figure metropolitan area, a sizable fan base and updated facilities, not to mention a basketball tradition and an accomplished football coach, Mike Price, looking to revive his career.

Conference USA athletic directors have recommended UTEP as the revamped league’s 12th member, according to published reports. Presidents from post-2005 league members are expected to vote on the matter April 30.

Jeff Darby, UTEP’s associate athletic director of media relations, said the school has not received an official invitation. Athletic director Bob Stull has remained mum, not returning phone calls.

But in the recent protocol of conference realignment, an official invitation usually means the conference and its prospective new member have long since come to terms. Nobody is eager to repeat the Atlantic Coast Conference’s 2003 snafu involving Syracuse and Boston College.

For instance, when Marshall’s Board of Governors voted unanimously to authorize president Dan Angel to pursue C-USA membership, an official invitation had not been extended. Yet Marshall’s move became a foregone conclusion.

UTEP would leave the hard-luck Western Athletic Conference, which has coped with several seismic upheavals since its founding in 1962. The Miners joined that league in 1967.

Rice, Tulsa and Southern Methodist are bolting from the WAC in 2005. Those schools, along with C-USA charter member Houston, are thought to form the base of support for UTEP.

Conversely, UTEP — with a current enrollment of 18,542 — could strengthen its recruiting in the talent-rich state of Texas, and appeal to large alumni pockets in Houston and Dallas.

UTEP has emerged as the leading candidate to replace Texas Christian University, which is moving to the Mountain West Conference. C-USA has the option to stand pat at 11 teams, but commissioner Britton Banowsky and others want the league to conduct a potentially lucrative football championship game.

(Page 2 of 3)

Louisiana Tech and North Texas are among the schools that would be passed over.

“Several of those places would be a good fit,

<a href='http://www.wvgazette.com/section/Sports/2004042151' target='_blank'>Doug Smock article...</a>

Looks like he pretty much hit on all the advantages UTEP would bring to CUSA.

Hope it happens fellows!

That's good for UTEP, but how does that help C-USA?

Personally, I'd would prefer a new bowl alliance guarantee among other things. There attendance at their home games does not offset the additional expenses teams will have traveling to El Paso.

Tony, I believe your a supporter of adding La Tech, but really, this travel issue is being overblown imo. As a member of the eastern end of the conference, we would not travel to El Paso every year for football. IF the western end of the conference can live with UTEP, I think we should be happy as of the available schools, they give us more of what we need, especially in basketball.

I have nothing against La Tech, but imo they offer C-USA very little except a easier road trip (that might lose money also). Again, jmo.

:wave:

[quote]Louisiana Tech and North Texas are among the schools that would be passed over.

“Several of those places would be a good fit,

Not trying to be in favor of La. Tech, but the Dallas Morning News posted yesteday that Rice, Tulsa, and SMU are voting for La. Tech

<a href='http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/stories/040904dnspocusalede.67f3e.html' target='_blank'>http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/...lede.67f3e.html</a>

By other schools, he must be talking about Rice and Tulsa, Houston has not said they support La. Tech.

I do have to call the WV Gazette article into question because of the statement above. That's completely the opposite of everything that's been said to this point. SMU president Gerald Turner has gone on record in the Dallas Morning News in favor of La Tech.

Something has to be going on with shreveport if Tech is so highly in the picture again.Either the indy bowl has given the go ahead for home games or promised some kind of bowl package that has to include Tech.The mayor of Shreveport is a Tech grad with a lot of pull and I know LaTech could not have done it on Ruston alone.

Does anyone have a picture of Tulsa's stadium.I have never seen it.

Skelly Stadium

(that's the Reynolds Center in the foreground)


Looking south. The stands that you're looking at the back of, in the north zone, will be replaced with a new football building in the next few years. We're raising the money right now)

Word out of Ruston this afternoon is that NO DECISION will be made by the Presidents until Mid-May at the earliest when they meet in Destin for the annual meetings...

The tele-confernece on the 30th was "deemed" informal -

My guess is that there is a HIGH probability that the Presidents call "do-over" and stand pat at 11...

Word out of Ruston?

Source?

It takes more than 3 to "tango". In fact, it takes 8. Which Tech ain't gonna get. Face it, they're blackballed. Now, if you schools out west want to blackball UTEP, too, that's fine by me. Stalemate means stay at 11, which is the only truely acceptable resolution, IMO. But Tech it ain't, and ain't going to be. At some point, Cane Gang, you're gonna have to do some crawfishin' (i.e. backtrackin') on Tech.

<a href='http://www.latechbbb.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=7530' target='_blank'>http://www.latechbbb.com/index.php?name=PN...iewtopic&t=7530</a>

I'm afraid I don't have to do any backtrackin' on La Tech... now or ever. Why would I backtrack on my own opinion?

And the support from the western schools for La Tech has been on record for awhile. How is that blackballing UTEP? Voting for somebody doesn't necessarily mean you're voting "against" somebody else (unless you're Oliver Stone paranoid).

What seems clear to me is that staying at 11 looks pretty likely, because if the western schools favor La Tech and the eastern schools favor UTEP, there's going to be a stalemate. Not enough votes either way.

I still think it's worth pointing out the irony of the eastern schools trying to dictate the team to be added to the western division against the western schools' wishes... especially since the western schools are currently in the same conference with both of the finalists and want to go with the other candidate.

It's like you're trying to tell us who to go to the prom with, even though we've already dated both girls and know who's the better dancer...

So instead of "dancing" with the fat chick, you'd rather dance with the fat chick with the pimples? We're just looking out for your own good. The crawfishin' you're going to have to do at some point is to give some credence to the sources that are confirming that it will be UTEP or nobody. At some point, you've got to see the writing on the wall. Besides, if we are going to let the "wisdom" of Tulsa, Rice, and SMU tell us what is good for the conference, we might as well be handing over the reins to Moe, Larry, and Curley.

Tulsa,OK

Some of ya'll are going to have a hard time if by chance the stars do align correctly and TECH some how slides in the back door...

Nice stadium, Cane.

Dwane, I like your vigour, hope, and thought possess. But I really don't see the eastern teams letting LA Tech in. As I told someone earlier and please don't take this as a flame, "If Tech would have commited to building a stadium when they first came back in I-A in 88, they would be sitting in C-USA now." It may have taken you all a while it may have taken 10 yrs with your budget, but you are claiming that you would be able to use the I. Bowl as your home stadium, why not then as you build a stadium. You would have had a new stadium and most likely an edge over UTEP. I haven't seen anything come out of Tech renovation wise.

... because they can't afford it. see:WAC

Thanks. It's okay. Needs some work. We've spent a ton of money on facilities for every other sport on campus (including $30 million for our arena 5 years ago). Football is the only one left to address.

To let everyone know what some of the plans/ideas are:

1) The stands in the end zone on the right of the photo are the north stands. Those will be the ones to get replaced by our new football building, with meetings rooms, locker rooms, etc. That fundraising drive is already underway.

2) The press box needs to be replaced and expanded. There's talk of doing some fairly extensive work on the upper stands at that time, including a new facade on the stadium exterior to match the rest of campus.

3) Many people favor "bowling in" the south end zone (to the left). That would create a horseshoe and replace some of the seats we'll lose on the north side.

4) New restrooms and concession stands throughout.

When all is said and done, we'll have a nice little stadium around 35-36k capacity, which is just right for us.

btw, that street that runs just to the left of the stadium in the photo? That's old Route 66. So all you folks will be able to say your team "Got Their *ss Kicked on Route 66". :D

2/3 of 11 is 7.334

Take 7 votes to get an invite from C-USA

Three have said they will support La. Tech, but will they get the other 4 needed?

Truthfully, I don't know.

Thank you, Cane Gang...quite possibly the coolest post anyone's made regarding Tech on this board so far. Understand, we really have enjoyed our association with Tulsa, SMU and Rice the last 3 or 4 years. I truly believe the eastern schools + many at USM simply don't know us, or in the case of USM, aren't old enough to remember the 42 times we played them in 60 years.

The last time we played the Eagles was 1992. Hard to believe '92 was TWELVE years ago. In context, current students at both universities were playing with their Power Rangers the last time we hooked up.

Looking forward to continued time with the Hurricane...you guys are great!!

And as far as I know, only Rice, SMU, and Tulsa want you in this conference.

And Tulane.

I don't know how most folks are, but speaking for myself, if I want to buy a new car, and say i've basically narrowed it down to a Toyota or a Nissan (hypothetical, here...), I go to people that have owned both, or certainly one or the other for their preference.

If all of those who've owned both are saying "Go With Toyota" I think i'd be inclined to do that.

What I don't get though, is who's twisting UH's arm the other direction?

Actually the only people "on record" are SMU and Tulane.

Tulane's AD's endorsement was extremely tepid (and was really an endorsement of stay at 11)and SMU's endorsement was "Because of Tulane"

I don't buy either one. Tulane never plays tech and suddenly they must be in a league with them. SMU (and Rice, Tulsa, I suspect) feel some sort of obligation to Tech and the WAC, and are using Tulane as a cover. Now certainly, given a limited choice of tech v utep, they might prefer tech on its own merits (closer), but considering that tech fans have claimed tulane's support throughout this process, I have my doubts (and it is decidedly in tulane's interests to bring in an EASTERN team- you can't get more travel friendly than western c-usa with USM as team number 6).

And Cane, as for "We've dated both", speak for yourself- Tulane and Houston, CHARTER members of this league and western conference members, have not dated both.

Well, well, well. We have a four page pulp fiction local Ruston newspaper getting information from a "CUSA spokesman" and the AD from Tech who is groveling for entry to rely on for our information. I had rather rely on the AD at Southern Miss who has already stated the announcement will be May 15 and "UTEP offers what CUSA is looking for".

Apparently to you anti-Tech's, "On the Record" includes ambiguous articles in the Orlando newspaper which several others would later repeat (so it's gotta be true!), but NOBODY could back up...and at least one AD not only denied, but said his support/recommendation was THE OTHER school. This alone completely BLOWS the Orlando article out of the realm of "on the record" and into "rumour du jour." Now, the writer of the article is crawfishing on his sources and the reliability of his information (he was on Monroe Sports radio yesterday and stated that the AD's recommendation is still unclear).

I am VERY confident that Tulsa, Rice, and SMU all support Tech's admission, and thanks to the Green Wave AD's comments in Shreveport "If we stayed at 11 we'd be all right with it, but if we're going to add a 12th, we've already made it clear that we support the state school, Louisiana Tech." Made it clear that if CUSA goes to 12 Tulane wants Tech doesn't sound "tepid" to me.

I personally believe you have about 4 definites for Tech, 3 or 4 definites for UTEP and the rest are waffling back and forth...in other words, Stalemate = CUSA stays at 11. I think it's a very real possibility.

Here's to hoping your right! Stay at 11. No more deadweight.

Of course it's tepid- it's clear from his language that 11 is his first choice.

Dickson has been at Tulane several years. Why has he rejected every opportunity to schedule tech if he wants them in the league so bad, just as every tulane AD has done since Pearl Harbor? Frankly, tech has been begging c-usa teams for home and homes, and to a school they say "no thanks"- difficulty in gaining conference admission should be no surprise.

Don't need CUSA supporters saying stuff like "no more deadweight" when their are plenty of others outside of CUSA that feel that CUSA is deadweight.