If it's only between those two then Liberty. I like the fact that they are closer to the footprint and I like their football stadium.

Neither, the Belt don't need no stinkin' expansion.

(03-30-2014 08:30 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  Neither, the Belt don't need no stinkin' expansion.

Can we all agree that the timeframe of UMass ultimately coincides with the recent soccer adds. I think it's been know for a while yet no team has been added. Which means ain't nobody on the table ready yet that schools can agree on. I think people down play things but the presidents won't add UMass or liberty.

(03-30-2014 03:47 PM)Campaign4Liberty Wrote:  UMASS is not an option. Benson and co. knew UMASS would decline a MAC all sports invite many moons ago. The SBC wants an eastern team to help with travel...but not that far east and certainly not that far north.

Hey this is the first I've heard from you on this topic, very interesting.

Between those two? Liberty. By a lot.

I don't really want either but between those two ? I would take UMASS.

Think about them as a the East Division's Idaho.

(03-30-2014 10:30 PM)chrisattsu Wrote:  I don't really want either but between those two ? I would take UMASS.

Think about them as a the East Division's Idaho.

Wait!

I was already advocating that Idaho be the east division's Idaho.

I appreciate the people who are able to play along.

We have a bunch of Internet experts but who really knows.

EKU may not be ready for a while not sure why but it's what you read.

JMU may or may not think they are to good also might not really want FBS.

Missouri State is investing in its football stadium but 17000 is going to be the capacity ? Some fans want FBS does the school

Liberty is serious about moving up but have issues.

UMASS is out of the footprint but already FBS and are currently investing in their on campus stadium. Eventually playing one or two games a year in Gillette stadium.

No perfect candidate that Is willing and able I would have thought Montana would have made the move. A far better candidate than any of these schools although not for the SBC

(03-31-2014 03:19 AM)MJG Wrote:  I appreciate the people who are able to play along.

We have a bunch of Internet experts but who really knows.

EKU may not be ready for a while not sure why but it's what you read.

JMU may or may not think they are to good also might not really want FBS.

Missouri State is investing in its football stadium but 17000 is going to be the capacity ? Some fans want FBS does the school

Liberty is serious about moving up but have issues.

UMASS is out of the footprint but already FBS and are currently investing in their on campus stadium. Eventually playing one or two games a year in Gillette stadium.

No perfect candidate that Is willing and able I would have thought Montana would have made the move. A far better candidate than any of these schools although not for the SBC

Would love for Montana to be in the SBC. Doubt many people
in the SBC would welcome it though. Good people at Montana. Enjoyed playing them the last two years in football again.

(03-31-2014 03:28 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(03-31-2014 03:19 AM)MJG Wrote:  I appreciate the people who are able to play along.

We have a bunch of Internet experts but who really knows.

EKU may not be ready for a while not sure why but it's what you read.

JMU may or may not think they are to good also might not really want FBS.

Missouri State is investing in its football stadium but 17000 is going to be the capacity ? Some fans want FBS does the school

Liberty is serious about moving up but have issues.

UMASS is out of the footprint but already FBS and are currently investing in their on campus stadium. Eventually playing one or two games a year in Gillette stadium.

No perfect candidate that Is willing and able I would have thought Montana would have made the move. A far better candidate than any of these schools although not for the SBC

Would love for Montana to be in the SBC. Doubt many people
in the SBC would welcome it though. Good people at Montana. Enjoyed playing them the last two years in football again.

Idaho does need a travel partner.

The school most likely to produce on the field, and on the court in the long run is Liberty. Why? Because they have a burning desire to excel. Except for their inability to live and let live they are clearly the best candidate.

I am certain their president has assured Czar Benson that there will be NO, NOTTA one gay issue for athletic events. I get the feeling we shall see if he can or WILL deliver on such promises. I could care less what they believe about evolution, and creationism, that is for their students to deal with.

Sorry to see Missouri State considers a 17k seat stadium an FBS platform. Maybe they are confused and think they are building a basketball arena.

Between UMass and Liberty then I chose Liberty.

They need to play games on Sunday though

(03-31-2014 06:01 AM)GaSouthern Wrote:  Between UMass and Liberty then I chose Liberty.

They need to play games on Sunday though

or forfeit. I am fine with forfeits. Keeps them out of the championship lights.

Liberty plays games on Sunday...and has for a long time.

(03-30-2014 04:26 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 04:19 PM)PTJR Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 03:55 PM)TStatebobcat Wrote:  

(03-30-2014 03:37 PM)MJG Wrote:  Pick one and why

No hijacking the thread we know this forums fans want JMU or MSU. The premise is only these two are willing or ready with waiting not being an option. Probably a lesser of two evils for some but that is the ideal.

UMass. two reasons: one it gives the Sunbelt a championship game the second the minutemen join the league. At best it would be 2016 if Liberty were to move starting next year.

Second: This gives time for JMU or Missouri State to decide what to do with their athletic futures.

UMass also would offer something for basketball. Although they have no intention of leaving the A-10 for basketball in the SBC, the SBC could require that they do some home and away non-conference scheduling with SBC basketball teams. The MAC required that from both UMass and Temple in exchange for a football only membership.

Couldn't UMass actually start in 2014 if they paid 500K? Seems like starting I 2014 and adding in a basketball scheduling agreement would make UMass a nice addition.

The MAC does not want.them and might let them go without paying

(03-31-2014 05:49 AM)CajunExpress Wrote:  The school most likely to produce on the field, and on the court in the long run is Liberty. Why? Because they have a burning desire to excel. Except for their inability to live and let live they are clearly the best candidate.

They have the burning desire to excel, but how many playoff wins has that garnered them in football?

How many units do they bring to their existing conference for basketball?

I dunno, I just don't see them turning a burning desire into results. They have the money, but that hasn't bought them any national championships or deep playoff runs.

Schools what 20 years old? Have a little faith.

I correct myself established in 1971.

I see people talking about UMASS doing a scheduling agreement in basketball if they were allowed in as a football-only invite. That is not going to happen!

First off, UMASS is not a national power like they were under Calipari. And when they were "good", they had their wins taken away because Marcus Camby received benefits. Secondly, UMASS is at a point now where they can reevaluate its football program. In the next 2 years in the MAC, they can see if being in the FBS is worth it. Therefore, taking a football-only invite right now when they might need to drop back down is not worth it even though they are in FBS.

(03-31-2014 10:24 AM)LUcanesfan Wrote:  I see people talking about UMASS doing a scheduling agreement in basketball if they were allowed in as a football-only invite. That is not going to happen!

First off, UMASS is not a national power like they were under Calipari. And when they were "good", they had their wins taken away because Marcus Camby received benefits. Secondly, UMASS is at a point now where they can reevaluate its football program. In the next 2 years in the MAC, they can see if being in the FBS is worth it. Therefore, taking a football-only invite right now when they might need to drop back down is not worth it even though they are in FBS.

UMass has already had a basketball scheduling agreement with the MAC and it would certainly be the price of another football only membership.
UMass typically has a much better RPI than most SBC schools and four games against SBC competition per year would raise the teams that played them and the conference RPI accordingly.

(03-31-2014 05:49 AM)CajunExpress Wrote:  The school most likely to produce on the field, and on the court in the long run is Liberty. Why? Because they have a burning desire to excel. Except for their inability to live and let live they are clearly the best candidate.

I am certain their president has assured Czar Benson that there will be NO, NOTTA one gay issue for athletic events. I get the feeling we shall see if he can or WILL deliver on such promises. I could care less what they believe about evolution, and creationism, that is for their students to deal with.

Sorry to see Missouri State considers a 17k seat stadium an FBS platform. Maybe they are confused and think they are building a basketball arena.

I don't think every conference school needs to be of the same academic level, but I would prefer that every degree from an SBC school have an expectation that the student was taught real science (among other things), not biblically based wishful thinking.