I thought this was a good post from the stAte message board:

http://www.arkst.com/board/index.php?top...msg1003795

Good southern football is not metro. Build on that.

EXACTLY. And it means that long term, those of us who arent sexy to other leagues because of our markets, will have a long term STABLE conference. When CUSA needs new members, and they will, they'll need to choose start-ups to keep trying to justify their existence.

Small market only please.

+1

Call us the JSM Conference.

The Small Town Conference.

(11-28-2012 07:58 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  I thought this was a good post from the stAte message board:

http://www.arkst.com/board/index.php?top...msg1003795

Good southern football is not metro. Build on that.

Nice read. I don't much care for the shot at MT's attendance.

In the past 8 years, MT and ASU have outdrawn each other in attendance exactly 4 times each. If MT's fan support is terrible, what's ASU's?

Everyone of us will have crests and troughs of fan support.

The sun will come up again tomorrow and life will go on. The SBC and the MAC have so much in common. Both play good football and earn respect the hard way . . on the field of play.

Personally, I would not mind a midwestern conference running from North to South . . North Division of current MAC schools . . South Division of current SBC schools. Now that would truly be a Mid-America conference.

Go SBC !!

(11-28-2012 08:16 PM)troy4ever21 Wrote:  The Small Town Conference.

Hahaha the STC. I like it

Make money the old-fashioned way. Be good enough to bust the BCS. Do that and TV money will follow, markets be damned. The money will follow at the gate and in the booster clubs.

(11-28-2012 08:19 PM)RaiderDoug Wrote:  

(11-28-2012 07:58 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  I thought this was a good post from the stAte message board:

http://www.arkst.com/board/index.php?top...msg1003795

Good southern football is not metro. Build on that.

Nice read. I don't much care for the shot at MT's attendance.

In the past 8 years, MT and ASU have outdrawn each other in attendance exactly 4 times each. If MT's fan support is terrible, what's ASU's?

Everyone of us will have crests and troughs of fan support.

I agree that MT's attendance was top half of the Sun Belt generally over the years - but this year it was not good, considering the product - wouldn't you agree?

And if you start thinking about attendance as a fraction of the the number of students and alums, MT, UNT, FIU, and FAU aren't well supported in the stands. They should all double stAte/Troy in attendance, but they don't even average 50% more. There is something to that.

(11-28-2012 08:25 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(11-28-2012 08:19 PM)RaiderDoug Wrote:  

(11-28-2012 07:58 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  I thought this was a good post from the stAte message board:

http://www.arkst.com/board/index.php?top...msg1003795

Good southern football is not metro. Build on that.

Nice read. I don't much care for the shot at MT's attendance.

In the past 8 years, MT and ASU have outdrawn each other in attendance exactly 4 times each. If MT's fan support is terrible, what's ASU's?

Everyone of us will have crests and troughs of fan support.

I agree that MT's attendance was top half of the Sun Belt generally over the years - but this year it was not good, considering the product - wouldn't you agree?

And if you start thinking about attendance as a fraction of the the number of students and alums, MT, UNT, FIU, and FAU aren't well supported in the stands. They should all double stAte/Troy in attendance, but they don't even average 50% more. There is something to that.

Did you look at what happened last year, our home schedule this year, and who we lost to this year at home? It hardly excites anyone. But who cares.

(11-28-2012 08:30 PM)MTowho Wrote:  

(11-28-2012 08:25 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(11-28-2012 08:19 PM)RaiderDoug Wrote:  

(11-28-2012 07:58 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  I thought this was a good post from the stAte message board:

http://www.arkst.com/board/index.php?top...msg1003795

Good southern football is not metro. Build on that.

Nice read. I don't much care for the shot at MT's attendance.

In the past 8 years, MT and ASU have outdrawn each other in attendance exactly 4 times each. If MT's fan support is terrible, what's ASU's?

Everyone of us will have crests and troughs of fan support.

I agree that MT's attendance was top half of the Sun Belt generally over the years - but this year it was not good, considering the product - wouldn't you agree?

And if you start thinking about attendance as a fraction of the the number of students and alums, MT, UNT, FIU, and FAU aren't well supported in the stands. They should all double stAte/Troy in attendance, but they don't even average 50% more. There is something to that.

Did you look at what happened last year, our home schedule this year, and who we lost to this year at home? It hardly excites anyone. But who cares.

stAte averages 1.5x enrollment. MTSU does not. Why is that?

(11-28-2012 08:24 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Make money the old-fashioned way. Be good enough to bust the BCS. Do that and TV money will follow, markets be damned. The money will follow at the gate and in the booster clubs.

I think most of the teams moving down to CUSA realize that winning big is not in the cards for their programs, so they had to go a different route.

If conference expansion is based solely on media markets, which it is nowadays, then TROY is screwed. We're in the smallest town in the conference and have the 2nd lowest student population.

(11-28-2012 08:25 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  I agree that MT's attendance was top half of the Sun Belt generally over the years - but this year it was not good, considering the product - wouldn't you agree?

And if you start thinking about attendance as a fraction of the the number of students and alums, MT, UNT, FIU, and FAU aren't well supported in the stands. They should all double stAte/Troy in attendance, but they don't even average 50% more. There is something to that.

As an MT fan, I know and hope that it would be better. We do need to have been support from the city of M'boro.

That said, we were coming off a 2-10 season and then opened the season with a croaker vs McNeese.

With Malzahn and ASU rolling, I could see ASU leading the SBC in attendance for a few years now.

I just didn't like the slap at MT. MT is still drawing near 20k, and has led the entire conference in attendance several times.

(11-28-2012 08:34 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  stAte averages 1.5x enrollment. MTSU does not. Why is that?

Actually, we do average about 1.5x stAte's enrollment. Well, more like 1.3x this year.

MT has almost 27k students. We can't fit 1.5x our enrollment in our stadium.

(11-28-2012 08:49 PM)RaiderDoug Wrote:  

(11-28-2012 08:25 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  I agree that MT's attendance was top half of the Sun Belt generally over the years - but this year it was not good, considering the product - wouldn't you agree?

And if you start thinking about attendance as a fraction of the the number of students and alums, MT, UNT, FIU, and FAU aren't well supported in the stands. They should all double stAte/Troy in attendance, but they don't even average 50% more. There is something to that.

As an MT fan, I know and hope that it would be better. We do need to have been support from the city of M'boro.

That said, we were coming off a 2-10 season and then opened the season with a croaker vs McNeese.

With Malzahn and ASU rolling, I could see ASU leading the SBC in attendance for a few years now.

I just didn't like the slap at MT. MT is still drawing near 20k, and has led the entire conference in attendance several times.

Understood. MT was a good SBC member and never an attendance problem.

I wish these programs had stuck together like the MAC, they are doing it right. But alas, stars in the eyes.

There will be winners and losers in this mess. Who those will be we do not know. Some will go to their new home and be successful, some will leave a conference where they were relevant and find themselves to be irrelevant.

(11-28-2012 09:04 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  I wish these programs had stuck together like the MAC, they are doing it right. But alas, stars in the eyes.

There will be winners and losers in this mess. Who those will be we do not know. Some will go to their new home and be successful, some will leave a conference where they were relevant and find themselves to be irrelevant.

I still think this could have been avoided with stronger leadership from Benson. All through the last year during the realignment fiasco, it always seemed like we were being reactive, instead of pro-active.

The minute FIU/NT left, that was the time to get everyone together, build a conference with those that were left, get to 12 (AppSt+1), institute a major buyout for anyone who wants to leave, etc, etc, etc.

It always seemed like the SBC was just waiting for the next shoe to drop.

(11-28-2012 09:15 PM)RaiderDoug Wrote:  

(11-28-2012 09:04 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  I wish these programs had stuck together like the MAC, they are doing it right. But alas, stars in the eyes.

There will be winners and losers in this mess. Who those will be we do not know. Some will go to their new home and be successful, some will leave a conference where they were relevant and find themselves to be irrelevant.

I still think this could have been avoided with stronger leadership from Benson. All through the last year during the realignment fiasco, it always seemed like we were being reactive, instead of pro-active.

The minute FIU/NT left, that was the time to get everyone together, build a conference with those that were left, get to 12 (AppSt+1), institute a major buyout for anyone who wants to leave, etc, etc, etc.

It always seemed like the SBC was just waiting for the next shoe to drop.

If I remember correctly, Benson wanted to add two more teams last year, but the school presidents were the ones that did not want to be proactive and wanted to wait it out.

Does the SBC have an exit fee? If not, why not? If the conference had consensus to stick together last year, there should have been a million dollar exit fee imposed. With the success of the Sun Belt on the field, there may have been a stronger feeling that the league would stick together. My guess is that MTSU, FAU reacted quickly because they didn't want to say no and be left while their conference mates took off to the proposed greener pastures. The SEC, B1G & Pac12 seem to make decisions based on the long term. Most other conferences seem to make decisions based on the next TV contract.

(11-28-2012 09:23 PM)SumItUp Wrote:  If I remember correctly, Benson wanted to add two more teams last year, but the school presidents were the ones that did not want to be proactive and wanted to wait it out.

Does the SBC have an exit fee? If not, why not? If the conference had consensus to stick together last year, there should have been a million dollar exit fee imposed. With the success of the Sun Belt on the field, there may have been a stronger feeling that the league would stick together. My guess is that MTSU, FAU reacted quickly because they didn't want to say no and be left while their conference mates took off to the proposed greener pastures. The SEC, B1G & Pac12 seem to make decisions based on the long term. Most other conferences seem to make decisions based on the next TV contract.

If the Presidents didn't want 12, then the seeds of this move were sewn long ago.

I think the fear of being left behind was a major factor in today's moves. I don't think MT was ever unhappy in the SBC. But we couldn't take the chance of being left in a conference where several of our other programs have left. SBC minus Troy or WKU or ASU is not a place we want to be.

It's the same reason CUSA can get any other SBC teams with a simple phone call.