Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)


Post Reply 
"Football-only" SBC-WAC solution
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
BarkonDawgs Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 133
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 7
I Root For: Louisiana Tech
Location:
Post: #21
RE: "Football-only" SBC-WAC solution
(08-19-2010 09:17 AM)galojah Wrote:  La Tech would rather disband athletics than come to SBC (their words on BBB).... so let em.

Thats a quote from ONE poster. Let's be fair...here were some other posters comments

"WE NEED TO GET OVER OURSELVES. The sunbelt is not the end of athletics."

"I've noticed the Sun Belt is improving since it first started playing too. MTSU and Troy are at the very LEAST just as good as Tech. WKU has potential. Baseball is fantastic."

and, to THE poster who said he'd rather shut down athletics than join the belt, "Thats the dumbest thing I have heard in my entire life. The Sun Belt is better as it is constructed right now than the WAC will be."

What's my point? Everybody has an opinion. Ultimately, it's doubtful that you nor I will be personally contacted for a vote.
(This post was last modified: 08-19-2010 09:49 AM by BarkonDawgs.)
08-19-2010 09:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fanof49ASU Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,813
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 258
I Root For: stAte
Location: Nashville, TN
Post: #22
RE: "Football-only" SBC-WAC solution
Quote:I've noticed the Sun Belt is improving since it first started playing too. MTSU and Troy are at the very LEAST just as good as Tech. WKU has potential. Baseball is fantastic.

Loser Tech will always be Loser Tech. The mentality of some will never change.
If they do eventually join, every SBC team will be gunning for them from the start.
08-19-2010 09:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MTPiKapp Offline
Socialist
*

Posts: 16,857
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation: 716
I Root For: MiddleTennessee
Location: Roswell, GA
Post: #23
RE: "Football-only" SBC-WAC solution
(08-19-2010 08:56 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  Guys, with USA coming on board we are two schools away from a Championship game. Tech and NMSU would round us out to 12 REAL Sun Belt Schools stretching from Florida to New Mexico with every state in between (except Miss.).

That's a growing demographic which will get the attention of the national media outlets. We will pass the MAC this year and if somebody goes on a run, we could demand the attention of a Ball St. a few years back.

It's all now within reach.

I find myself wondering where we would play our championship game within our current footprint and you're talking about expanding it close to 700 miles westward. I do think that if we are to go to 12, that those are the obvious choices, but I'm really not sure that NMSU brings enough to the table.
08-19-2010 10:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FIUFan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,498
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 96
I Root For: FIU
Location: Coral Gables, FL
Post: #24
RE: "Football-only" SBC-WAC solution
(08-19-2010 10:01 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  
(08-19-2010 08:56 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  Guys, with USA coming on board we are two schools away from a Championship game. Tech and NMSU would round us out to 12 REAL Sun Belt Schools stretching from Florida to New Mexico with every state in between (except Miss.).
That's a growing demographic which will get the attention of the national media outlets. We will pass the MAC this year and if somebody goes on a run, we could demand the attention of a Ball St. a few years back.
It's all now within reach.
I find myself wondering where we would play our championship game within our current footprint and you're talking about expanding it close to 700 miles westward. I do think that if we are to go to 12, that those are the obvious choices, but I'm really not sure that NMSU brings enough to the table.
I hear you but in the first iteration of Sun Belt football NMSU was a very good friend to the Belt (for all sports)...and a friend in need is a friend indeed.

USU, however, can pound sand.

As far as a Champ. game location, we should let economics play the key role there. There are many suitable locations through-out the Sun Belt states; the skies the limit....I'm thinking maybe that new Football Palace in Texas for example. 03-cloud9
(This post was last modified: 08-19-2010 10:10 AM by FIUFan.)
08-19-2010 10:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MTPiKapp Offline
Socialist
*

Posts: 16,857
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation: 716
I Root For: MiddleTennessee
Location: Roswell, GA
Post: #25
RE: "Football-only" SBC-WAC solution
(08-19-2010 10:09 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  
(08-19-2010 10:01 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  
(08-19-2010 08:56 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  Guys, with USA coming on board we are two schools away from a Championship game. Tech and NMSU would round us out to 12 REAL Sun Belt Schools stretching from Florida to New Mexico with every state in between (except Miss.).
That's a growing demographic which will get the attention of the national media outlets. We will pass the MAC this year and if somebody goes on a run, we could demand the attention of a Ball St. a few years back.
It's all now within reach.
I find myself wondering where we would play our championship game within our current footprint and you're talking about expanding it close to 700 miles westward. I do think that if we are to go to 12, that those are the obvious choices, but I'm really not sure that NMSU brings enough to the table.
I hear you but in the first iteration of Sun Belt football NMSU was a very good friend to the Belt (for all sports)...and a friend in need is a friend indeed.

USU, however, can pound sand.

As far as a Champ. game location, we should let economics play the key role there. There are many suitable locations through-out the Sun Belt states; the skies the limit....I'm thing maybe that new Football Palace in Texas for example. 03-cloud9

I just think that a championship game could end up being really bad for this conference. I'd bet dollars to donuts that a neutral site Sun Belt championship game would draw less than 15,000 more often than not.
08-19-2010 10:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SkullyMaroo Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 11,193
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 635
I Root For: South Alabama
Location: Mobile
Post: #26
RE: "Football-only" SBC-WAC solution
(08-19-2010 10:12 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  I just think that a championship game could end up being really bad for this conference. I'd bet dollars to donuts that a neutral site Sun Belt championship game would draw less than 15,000 more often than not.

Yeah I think the game would not be a money maker by any means. Look at C-USA.
08-19-2010 10:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #27
RE: "Football-only" SBC-WAC solution
(08-19-2010 10:01 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  
(08-19-2010 08:56 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  Guys, with USA coming on board we are two schools away from a Championship game. Tech and NMSU would round us out to 12 REAL Sun Belt Schools stretching from Florida to New Mexico with every state in between (except Miss.).

That's a growing demographic which will get the attention of the national media outlets. We will pass the MAC this year and if somebody goes on a run, we could demand the attention of a Ball St. a few years back.

It's all now within reach.

I find myself wondering where we would play our championship game within our current footprint and you're talking about expanding it close to 700 miles westward. I do think that if we are to go to 12, that those are the obvious choices, but I'm really not sure that NMSU brings enough to the table.

Highest rated in the BCS computer rankings at the end of the regular season hosts. You don't want neutral site because those a proven to hurt bowl ticket sales even at the BCS level. If you've got a potential buster, you want them playing at home in the title game (see Ball State BCS #12 losing at a neutral site).
08-19-2010 10:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
galojah Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,713
Joined: Aug 2003
Reputation: 100
I Root For: WKU & NC State
Location: Raleigh, NC

Donators
Post: #28
RE: "Football-only" SBC-WAC solution
Majority (high majority) would rather (1) remain in a WAC that is WEAKER than the SBC or would rather (2) be independent. So, if that is the wish of the fans, good luck.



(08-19-2010 09:34 AM)BarkonDawgs Wrote:  
(08-19-2010 09:17 AM)galojah Wrote:  La Tech would rather disband athletics than come to SBC (their words on BBB).... so let em.

Thats a quote from ONE poster. Let's be fair...here were some other posters comments

"WE NEED TO GET OVER OURSELVES. The sunbelt is not the end of athletics."

"I've noticed the Sun Belt is improving since it first started playing too. MTSU and Troy are at the very LEAST just as good as Tech. WKU has potential. Baseball is fantastic."

and, to THE poster who said he'd rather shut down athletics than join the belt, "Thats the dumbest thing I have heard in my entire life. The Sun Belt is better as it is constructed right now than the WAC will be."

What's my point? Everybody has an opinion. Ultimately, it's doubtful that you nor I will be personally contacted for a vote.
08-19-2010 10:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MTPiKapp Offline
Socialist
*

Posts: 16,857
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation: 716
I Root For: MiddleTennessee
Location: Roswell, GA
Post: #29
RE: "Football-only" SBC-WAC solution
(08-19-2010 10:27 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(08-19-2010 10:01 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  
(08-19-2010 08:56 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  Guys, with USA coming on board we are two schools away from a Championship game. Tech and NMSU would round us out to 12 REAL Sun Belt Schools stretching from Florida to New Mexico with every state in between (except Miss.).

That's a growing demographic which will get the attention of the national media outlets. We will pass the MAC this year and if somebody goes on a run, we could demand the attention of a Ball St. a few years back.

It's all now within reach.

I find myself wondering where we would play our championship game within our current footprint and you're talking about expanding it close to 700 miles westward. I do think that if we are to go to 12, that those are the obvious choices, but I'm really not sure that NMSU brings enough to the table.

Highest rated in the BCS computer rankings at the end of the regular season hosts. You don't want neutral site because those a proven to hurt bowl ticket sales even at the BCS level. If you've got a potential buster, you want them playing at home in the title game (see Ball State BCS #12 losing at a neutral site).

I think that playing a championship game as a home game is a bad option, but is better than a neutral site.
08-19-2010 10:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
VideoGreenEagle Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 258
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 6
I Root For: UNT
Location:
Post: #30
RE: "Football-only" SBC-WAC solution
(08-19-2010 10:32 AM)galojah Wrote:  Majority (high majority) would rather (1) remain in a WAC that is WEAKER than the SBC or would rather (2) be independent. So, if that is the wish of the fans, good luck.

I think more rational thoughts will prevail. Besides, if NMSU jumps to the Belt the WAC is gone as it is below the six/five rule. Then Tech doesn't have a WAC in which to remain.
08-19-2010 10:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #31
RE: "Football-only" SBC-WAC solution
(08-19-2010 10:39 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  
(08-19-2010 10:27 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(08-19-2010 10:01 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  
(08-19-2010 08:56 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  Guys, with USA coming on board we are two schools away from a Championship game. Tech and NMSU would round us out to 12 REAL Sun Belt Schools stretching from Florida to New Mexico with every state in between (except Miss.).

That's a growing demographic which will get the attention of the national media outlets. We will pass the MAC this year and if somebody goes on a run, we could demand the attention of a Ball St. a few years back.

It's all now within reach.

I find myself wondering where we would play our championship game within our current footprint and you're talking about expanding it close to 700 miles westward. I do think that if we are to go to 12, that those are the obvious choices, but I'm really not sure that NMSU brings enough to the table.

Highest rated in the BCS computer rankings at the end of the regular season hosts. You don't want neutral site because those a proven to hurt bowl ticket sales even at the BCS level. If you've got a potential buster, you want them playing at home in the title game (see Ball State BCS #12 losing at a neutral site).

I think that playing a championship game as a home game is a bad option, but is better than a neutral site.

I think all championship games that aren't netting a million in profit are a bad option, but you do what you need to do.

Simple rule though. Any school who hosts the Sun Belt title game who fails to sell out is required to ban all their message board posters bellyaching for a new conference for five years.
08-19-2010 10:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FIUFan Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,498
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation: 96
I Root For: FIU
Location: Coral Gables, FL
Post: #32
RE: "Football-only" SBC-WAC solution
(08-19-2010 10:27 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Highest rated in the BCS computer rankings at the end of the regular season hosts. You don't want neutral site because those a proven to hurt bowl ticket sales even at the BCS level. If you've got a potential buster, you want them playing at home in the title game (see Ball State BCS #12 losing at a neutral site).

Yep, I agree with this. Highest ranked school should host. They would for sure sell the place out (given the great season they are obviously having) and could be a springboard for a bigger and better Bowl game.

Of course we are talking years down the road here guys; but you gotta dream big. 04-cheers
08-19-2010 10:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BarkonDawgs Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 133
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 7
I Root For: Louisiana Tech
Location:
Post: #33
RE: "Football-only" SBC-WAC solution
[quote='galojah' pid='5646667' dateline='1282231961']
Majority (high majority) would rather (1) remain in a WAC that is WEAKER than the SBC or would rather (2) be independent. So, if that is the wish of the fans, good luck.

The Sun Belt conference has improved over the last decade, no question. We'll see how it all turns out...hopefully for the betterment of all of us.
08-19-2010 11:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CajunT Offline
Basement Dweller Hater

Posts: 2,333
Joined: May 2007
I Root For: Louisiana
Location:
Post: #34
RE: "Football-only" SBC-WAC solution
(08-19-2010 09:34 AM)BarkonDawgs Wrote:  
(08-19-2010 09:17 AM)galojah Wrote:  La Tech would rather disband athletics than come to SBC (their words on BBB).... so let em.

Thats a quote from ONE poster. Let's be fair...here were some other posters comments

"WE NEED TO GET OVER OURSELVES. The sunbelt is not the end of athletics."

"I've noticed the Sun Belt is improving since it first started playing too. MTSU and Troy are at the very LEAST just as good as Tech. WKU has potential. Baseball is fantastic."

and, to THE poster who said he'd rather shut down athletics than join the belt, "Thats the dumbest thing I have heard in my entire life. The Sun Belt is better as it is constructed right now than the WAC will be."

What's my point? Everybody has an opinion. Ultimately, it's doubtful that you nor I will be personally contacted for a vote.

The problem goes much beyond fans comments, but between Reneau and Waters. Waters works for the Presidents, the question is will Reneau work with his peers behind the scenes to resolve past differences or will he cling to his seperation mantra that Davison and others so love to hear at Luncheons?

What is fascinating about Tech fans is there seems to be this large heard mentality that Tech’s facilities and programs are superior to a majority of SBC programs. Ignorance is bliss in Ruston.
08-19-2010 11:44 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KAjunRaider Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,199
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 242
I Root For: U.M.T.
Location: Atop Tiger Hill, TN
Post: #35
RE: "Football-only" SBC-WAC solution
Ever flown into Lewiston, Idaho ? The flight into and out of there literally sucks (scariest flight I've even been on). Runway is short, and leaving you drop off a mountain. Not very fun when you are on a plane-load of 200+ pound football players.

(08-19-2010 05:33 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  First everyone who knows college football knows that most bowls are a bought and paid for advertisement. I'm not interested in underwriting bowl games in Idaho, Hawaii, or California. New Mexico is feasible, let's visit.

Second USU and Idaho SUCK to travel to. Been there, done that. It's not worth the cost. SJSU isn't cheap, and neither is Hawaii. When something costs more than it benefits you don't do it.

Finally, I didn't see any lifeboats heading out from Hawaii or San Jose when we were on the verge of going under as a league. I see no reason we should do what no other league would do which is take teams just to be nice.

Someone may crunch the numbers and find NMSU and Tech worth adding and if that's the case, add them. This is a business after all.
08-19-2010 12:07 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KAjunRaider Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,199
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 242
I Root For: U.M.T.
Location: Atop Tiger Hill, TN
Post: #36
RE: "Football-only" SBC-WAC solution
(08-19-2010 09:04 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  LA-Tech to the SB would be in the best interest of both parties... BUT it wouldn't hurt me to see La-Tech suffer. You can't just burn your bridges and expect a ready welcome back. Let them suffer.

As of today, the Sun Belt is in the catbird's seat. Who woulda thunk ?

[Image: cat+bird+seat+collage.jpg]
08-19-2010 12:09 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JSinLR Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 539
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 28
I Root For: Arkansas State
Location:
Post: #37
RE: "Football-only" SBC-WAC solution
Hate to see Idaho, SJSU, USU & Hawaii die....so here's what needs to happen:

TCU bolts to the Big 12
BYU can go Indy or hope to join Big 12

MW out of sympathy picks up USU, ID, SJSU & Hawaii and goes to 12 teams.

SBC picks up NMSU & LTU to go to 12.

Nobody is left out. Wont happen, but I feel sorry for those left over from the realignment...I'd hate to be in those shoes.
08-19-2010 12:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MTPiKapp Offline
Socialist
*

Posts: 16,857
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation: 716
I Root For: MiddleTennessee
Location: Roswell, GA
Post: #38
RE: "Football-only" SBC-WAC solution
(08-19-2010 12:43 PM)JSinLR Wrote:  Hate to see Idaho, SJSU, USU & Hawaii die....so here's what needs to happen:

TCU bolts to the Big 12
BYU can go Indy or hope to join Big 12

MW out of sympathy picks up USU, ID, SJSU & Hawaii and goes to 12 teams.

SBC picks up NMSU & LTU to go to 12.

Nobody is left out. Wont happen, but I feel sorry for those left over from the realignment...I'd hate to be in those shoes.

Them's the breaks. Hate it for them, but won't lose any sleep over it. Call me a darwinist, but if their programs were stronger this wouldn't be an issue.
08-19-2010 12:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #39
RE: "Football-only" SBC-WAC solution
(08-19-2010 12:07 PM)KAjunRaider Wrote:  Ever flown into Lewiston, Idaho ? The flight into and out of there literally sucks (scariest flight I've even been on). Runway is short, and leaving you drop off a mountain. Not very fun when you are on a plane-load of 200+ pound football players.

When ASU did it, our charter would load just enough fuel to fly to Boise and put on a full load, otherwise they couldn't take off due to weight on the short runway.
08-19-2010 01:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SpaceRaider Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,720
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 157
I Root For: MiddleTennessee
Location: God's Country
Post: #40
RE: "Football-only" SBC-WAC solution
(08-19-2010 10:12 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  
(08-19-2010 10:09 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  
(08-19-2010 10:01 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  
(08-19-2010 08:56 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  Guys, with USA coming on board we are two schools away from a Championship game. Tech and NMSU would round us out to 12 REAL Sun Belt Schools stretching from Florida to New Mexico with every state in between (except Miss.).
That's a growing demographic which will get the attention of the national media outlets. We will pass the MAC this year and if somebody goes on a run, we could demand the attention of a Ball St. a few years back.
It's all now within reach.
I find myself wondering where we would play our championship game within our current footprint and you're talking about expanding it close to 700 miles westward. I do think that if we are to go to 12, that those are the obvious choices, but I'm really not sure that NMSU brings enough to the table.
I hear you but in the first iteration of Sun Belt football NMSU was a very good friend to the Belt (for all sports)...and a friend in need is a friend indeed.

USU, however, can pound sand.

As far as a Champ. game location, we should let economics play the key role there. There are many suitable locations through-out the Sun Belt states; the skies the limit....I'm thing maybe that new Football Palace in Texas for example. 03-cloud9

I just think that a championship game could end up being really bad for this conference. I'd bet dollars to donuts that a neutral site Sun Belt championship game would draw less than 15,000 more often than not.

if the Sun Belt did go to 12 would it have to have a championship game? I don't think one is req'd, is it?
08-19-2010 01:31 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.