Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)


Post Reply 
CCG Deregulation looks good
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
asupatch Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 442
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 2
I Root For: APPY STATE!!
Location: Denver, CO
Post: #41
RE: CCG Deregulation looks good
(04-15-2014 03:07 PM)Ed Harley Wrote:  
(04-15-2014 02:26 PM)statefanatic Wrote:  The best plan would be to add JMU or Liberty to the East. Add MSU to replace Idaho in 2016.

No, it wouldn't. Divisions or no divisions, we need to stay put until a strong candidate for expansion emerges. To date, we haven't seen anyone currently ready that fits that description.

The more and more this progresses the more I feel you are right. JMU would be the only one ready and able to be successful and it appears they don't know what they want. After that there are big ?'s surround the rest of the lot.
04-15-2014 03:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoAppsGo92 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,117
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 27
I Root For: TheMountaineers
Location:
Post: #42
RE: CCG Deregulation looks good
(04-15-2014 03:57 PM)asupatch Wrote:  
(04-15-2014 03:07 PM)Ed Harley Wrote:  
(04-15-2014 02:26 PM)statefanatic Wrote:  The best plan would be to add JMU or Liberty to the East. Add MSU to replace Idaho in 2016.

No, it wouldn't. Divisions or no divisions, we need to stay put until a strong candidate for expansion emerges. To date, we haven't seen anyone currently ready that fits that description.

The more and more this progresses the more I feel you are right. JMU would be the only one ready and able to be successful and it appears they don't know what they want. After that there are big ?'s surround the rest of the lot.

IF this thing passes, and 10 would work, I agree. But the thing is there is still $1M that the SBC doesn't get due to the revenue sharing program. We can add a team and not dilute the numbers for anyone. The ONLY choice to go FBS for JMU is the SBC. And if they pass this up, they are sentencing their program to purgatory for the next 10 years, maybe more.

If JMU somehow says no, I think we could and should wait until the pending legislation passes before we make a decision to add. Liberty, EKU, JSU, UTC, SHSU, MSU are not going anywhere... but I will say this: its either 10 or 12... I still lean toward 12 because we need to future proof the conference... even though we are looking at probably 2-5 years before any ripples come our way again.
04-15-2014 04:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Online
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 20,532
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 577
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #43
RE: CCG Deregulation looks good
(04-15-2014 04:21 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  
(04-15-2014 03:57 PM)asupatch Wrote:  
(04-15-2014 03:07 PM)Ed Harley Wrote:  
(04-15-2014 02:26 PM)statefanatic Wrote:  The best plan would be to add JMU or Liberty to the East. Add MSU to replace Idaho in 2016.

No, it wouldn't. Divisions or no divisions, we need to stay put until a strong candidate for expansion emerges. To date, we haven't seen anyone currently ready that fits that description.

The more and more this progresses the more I feel you are right. JMU would be the only one ready and able to be successful and it appears they don't know what they want. After that there are big ?'s surround the rest of the lot.

IF this thing passes, and 10 would work, I agree. But the thing is there is still $1M that the SBC doesn't get due to the revenue sharing program. We can add a team and not dilute the numbers for anyone. The ONLY choice to go FBS for JMU is the SBC. And if they pass this up, they are sentencing their program to purgatory for the next 10 years, maybe more.

If JMU somehow says no, I think we could and should wait until the pending legislation passes before we make a decision to add. Liberty, EKU, JSU, UTC, SHSU, MSU are not going anywhere... but I will say this: its either 10 or 12... I still lean toward 12 because we need to future proof the conference... even though we are looking at probably 2-5 years before any ripples come our way again.

$10 million for 10 programs vs. $12 million for 12 is revenue neutral.
04-15-2014 04:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoAppsGo92 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,117
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation: 27
I Root For: TheMountaineers
Location:
Post: #44
RE: CCG Deregulation looks good
(04-15-2014 04:51 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(04-15-2014 04:21 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  
(04-15-2014 03:57 PM)asupatch Wrote:  
(04-15-2014 03:07 PM)Ed Harley Wrote:  
(04-15-2014 02:26 PM)statefanatic Wrote:  The best plan would be to add JMU or Liberty to the East. Add MSU to replace Idaho in 2016.

No, it wouldn't. Divisions or no divisions, we need to stay put until a strong candidate for expansion emerges. To date, we haven't seen anyone currently ready that fits that description.

The more and more this progresses the more I feel you are right. JMU would be the only one ready and able to be successful and it appears they don't know what they want. After that there are big ?'s surround the rest of the lot.

IF this thing passes, and 10 would work, I agree. But the thing is there is still $1M that the SBC doesn't get due to the revenue sharing program. We can add a team and not dilute the numbers for anyone. The ONLY choice to go FBS for JMU is the SBC. And if they pass this up, they are sentencing their program to purgatory for the next 10 years, maybe more.

If JMU somehow says no, I think we could and should wait until the pending legislation passes before we make a decision to add. Liberty, EKU, JSU, UTC, SHSU, MSU are not going anywhere... but I will say this: its either 10 or 12... I still lean toward 12 because we need to future proof the conference... even though we are looking at probably 2-5 years before any ripples come our way again.

$10 million for 10 programs vs. $12 million for 12 is revenue neutral.

I know. I'm saying we can still invite and be revenue neutral. We are thinking of stuff that has already been thought of... the news of the pending legislation was already in circulation when the SBC presidents met in March. They still voted for 12. I think the likelihood of the legislation passing takes the pressure off of SBC a bit, so if JMU says no, we don't have to add someone by June 1. I think 12 is needed with MSU on deck to replace Idaho, JMU says yes and we have a very compact conference with two healthy divisions that is raid-resistant. The legislation ensures that losing a member won't mean we can't hold a championship game... that's important to the conference and the remaining members should anyone leave. We don't have a championship game because WKU bailed shortly after we brought in 4 new teams.
(This post was last modified: 04-15-2014 05:10 PM by GoAppsGo92.)
04-15-2014 05:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2018 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.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.