(05-15-2014 10:39 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 10:30 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  Ga. Southern wants the same as Ark. St. does-- a strong Sun Belt. Our AD just last week said he did not favor adding someone just for the sake of adding a 12th team. He is saying exactly what Ark. St.'s AD is saying.

No one is advocating inviting warm bodies to make 12. No one. But please don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. This group voted to invite Idaho and NMSU which when it comes to football are barely alive, yet bringing UMASS in is some strength of schedule ending crisis?

I agree with your perspective. Think about those divisions.

SBC East: UMass, Georgia St, App St, G.Southern, USA, Troy
SBC West: Idaho, New Mexico St, Texas St, Ark St, ULM, ULL

If you want to look like a big boy conference the best way to do it is to bring in land grant schools. What I'm looking at above looks like an FBS conference.

The idea a 12th doesn't bring value to the SBC is bull because a 12th team brings an extra 1 million of revenue from the CFP split plus whatever it does for the conference deal.

What better way to go to 12 than UMass, a school where you don't have to worry about increasing olympic sport costs but will deliver for you that 12th game.

(05-16-2014 06:54 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The idea a 12th doesn't bring value to the SBC is bull because a 12th team brings an extra 1 million of revenue from the CFP split plus whatever it does for the conference deal.

Say the Sun Belt invites UMass football only next year and gets that $1M in CFP split.

How much of that makes it to Texas State? I'm gonna go ahead and guess "zero", as that $1M goes to UMass. Now, maybe they split some of that with the Sun Belt as a travel subsidy, but we only get that portion (I'd imagine) if we were traveling to play UMass.

Further, I don't know that a 12th team triggers any renegotiation in the television deal.

While I do think a CCG provides intangible value, a 12th team is not necessary. So, it's much wiser to wait, and grab a team that everyone can agree on... aka, Missouri State, EKU (possibly), or JMU to change their mind. Heck, perhaps in the next year, Lamar comes on like gang busters, makes some improvements, and becomes viable. Or some other team. Or even Liberty coming up and making whatever changes are necessary for the presidents to approve.

(05-16-2014 04:58 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 04:54 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 04:50 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 04:48 PM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 03:31 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  He needs to go tell the Big 12 board he'll be glad not to join their fear-riddled league too.

The fact that you compare the SBC situation with that of the Big XII is laughable. The only correlation you could make was the WVU add. But Oklahoma. Texas and the majority of the other Big XII teams are on an entirely different level than any and every school in the SBC

The only correlation I made was in terms of not having a championship game.

And this is an accurate correlation. Next.

But the reasons are entirely different. A BMW and a Yugo are both cars and get you from Point A to Point B. But no one would confuse the two as being equal

My response was in regard to the statement that not being in favor of a championship game means fear of playing. If so, he should go chastise the Big 12 for being fearful.

That is accurate.

And it has nothing to do with any other characteristics of the Big 12 or SBC that you may want to drag in to try and blur my, rather concise, point.

Big XII Champion is a P-5 and doesn't need the CCG nearly as much as the SBC Champion.
Would be ironic if stAte went undefeated next year and lost out on the Access Bowl invite only because we did not play a CCG.

(05-16-2014 08:36 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Big XII Champion is a P-5 and doesn't need the CCG nearly as much as the SBC Champion.
Would be ironic if stAte went undefeated next year and lost out on the Access Bowl invite only because we did not play a CCG.

This is an easy assertion to make. Yet nobody has actually provided compelling arguments why the SBC actually needs a championship game so badly. To the point where we have to add whatever school is available, even another football only, and can brook no delay.

Winning one more SBC game against the weaker division is not going to impress anyone unless the other team is ranked. We've never had a single ranked team so the odds of having two ranked teams in opposite divisions this year or next seems fairly low and not much of a reason to provoke such a rush.

If stAte went undefeated next year it would mean that we beat Miami and Tennessee on the road and Utah State at home. We would have the access bowl slot unless another G5 team went undefeated and beat OOC teams with better records/rankings than the ones we beat.

If another team did beat P5 teams with better records/rankings than we did and went undefeated....an extra victory versus another Sun Belt team with a lesser record would not sway the selection committee to choose us over that team.

The scenarios where stAte would miss an access bowl slot solely because of not playing an extra game against another SBC team with a lesser record do exist....but the odds of such a scenario are slim.

You need really good reasons to get someone to vote for adding another struggling football-only outside of the footprint. I still haven't seen them.

(05-16-2014 09:29 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:36 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Big XII Champion is a P-5 and doesn't need the CCG nearly as much as the SBC Champion.
Would be ironic if stAte went undefeated next year and lost out on the Access Bowl invite only because we did not play a CCG.

This is an easy assertion to make. Yet nobody has actually provided compelling arguments why the SBC actually needs a championship game so badly. To the point where we have to add whatever school is available, even another football only, and can brook no delay.

Winning one more SBC game against the weaker division is not going to impress anyone unless the other team is ranked. We've never had a single ranked team so the odds of having two ranked teams in opposite divisions this year or next seems fairly low and not much of a reason to provoke such a rush.

If stAte went undefeated next year it would mean that we beat Miami and Tennessee on the road and Utah State at home. We would have the access bowl slot unless another G5 team went undefeated and beat OOC teams with better records/rankings than the ones we beat.

If another team did beat P5 teams with better records/rankings than we did and went undefeated....an extra victory versus another Sun Belt team with a lesser record would not sway the selection committee to choose us over that team.

The scenarios where stAte would miss an access bowl slot solely because of not playing an extra game against another SBC team with a lesser record do exist....but the odds of such a scenario are slim.

You need really good reasons to get someone to vote for adding another struggling football-only outside of the footprint. I still haven't seen them.

Very clear thinking.

(05-16-2014 08:34 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  While I do think a CCG provides intangible value, a 12th team is not necessary. So, it's much wiser to wait, and grab a team that everyone can agree on... aka, Missouri State, EKU (possibly), or JMU to change their mind. Heck, perhaps in the next year, Lamar comes on like gang busters, makes some improvements, and becomes viable. Or some other team. Or even Liberty coming up and making whatever changes are necessary for the presidents to approve.

Or UTA.

If more G5 AD's start indicating a desire to move away from scheduling FCS it may very well trigger a rethink on the part of some FCS programs and spur some to action.

The door really is closing on FBS for the FCS schools. At the moment there is only one more FBS slot and no guarantee there will be more. Their ability to play G5 schools may also be diminishing.

(05-16-2014 09:29 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 08:36 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Big XII Champion is a P-5 and doesn't need the CCG nearly as much as the SBC Champion.
Would be ironic if stAte went undefeated next year and lost out on the Access Bowl invite only because we did not play a CCG.

This is an easy assertion to make. Yet nobody has actually provided compelling arguments why the SBC actually needs a championship game so badly. To the point where we have to add whatever school is available, even another football only, and can brook no delay.

Winning one more SBC game against the weaker division is not going to impress anyone unless the other team is ranked. We've never had a single ranked team so the odds of having two ranked teams in opposite divisions this year or next seems fairly low and not much of a reason to provoke such a rush.

If stAte went undefeated next year it would mean that we beat Miami and Tennessee on the road and Utah State at home. We would have the access bowl slot unless another G5 team went undefeated and beat OOC teams with better records/rankings than the ones we beat.

If another team did beat P5 teams with better records/rankings than we did and went undefeated....an extra victory versus another Sun Belt team with a lesser record would not sway the selection committee to choose us over that team.

The scenarios where stAte would miss an access bowl slot solely because of not playing an extra game against another SBC team with a lesser record do exist....but the odds of such a scenario are slim.

You need really good reasons to get someone to vote for adding another struggling football-only outside of the footprint. I still haven't seen them.

We'll get left out of the Access bowl because Jeff Long is chairing the selection committee...not because we didn't play a title game.

(05-16-2014 09:58 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  We'll get left out of the Access bowl because Jeff Long is chairing the selection committee...not because we didn't play a title game.

That's a hurdle we'll have to jump when we get to it. But it does improve the chances for other Sun Belt teams.

(05-16-2014 08:34 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(05-16-2014 06:54 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  The idea a 12th doesn't bring value to the SBC is bull because a 12th team brings an extra 1 million of revenue from the CFP split plus whatever it does for the conference deal.

Say the Sun Belt invites UMass football only next year and gets that $1M in CFP split.

How much of that makes it to Texas State? I'm gonna go ahead and guess "zero", as that $1M goes to UMass.

Why would the Sunbelt give it to UMass and then ask for some back? Remember, the check is written to the Sunbelt. Some large fraction of $1m will go to the all-sports members if the Conference decides to do that ... but if the decision is for, say, 80% to go to the all-sports member and 20% to be devoted to some general conference purposes, that $800,000 going to each school from the CFP payout has nothing to do with what happens with the money the Sunbelt gets from adding UMass. (note that an 80% share could come to near or over $1m when the second tier is included, depending on where the Sunbelt ends up on the Go5 conference ranking).

Say they carved out all $1m from both UMass and Idaho with $800,000 for travel subsidies both ways and $200,000 affiliation fees. Then the ten all-sports members would get $40,000 from the affiliation fees, and $100,000 in the years that they traveled to Moscow or Boston, so if trips to Boston cross division are scheduled in years Idaho visits, and trips to Moscow cross division scheduled in years that UMass visits, then the Texas State would get $140,000 in the three years out of four that they travel and $40,000 otherwise.

Or if its $400,000 affiliation fees and $75,000 per game travel fee, it would be $145,000 in the three years it travels and $80,000 otherwise.

That is on top of whatever share of the $1m attracted by Texas State that the conference has decided will go to the all-sports members.

The split between affiliation fee and travel fees decides what fraction below half the FB-only school gets of the $1m.

Quote: Now, maybe they split some of that with the Sun Belt as a travel subsidy, but we only get that portion (I'd imagine) if we were traveling to play UMass.

Further, I don't know that a 12th team triggers any renegotiation in the television deal.

The CCG is new rights, it triggers its own deal. Whether breaking into divisions triggers a look-in depends on the details of the contract, which I am not privy to.

Note that the wide speculation regarding changes to the CCG rule does not mean that the Sunbelt can start the process of establishing a CCG and negotiating for rights ... not unless and until something passes, and then only if what passes deregulates or lowers minimum conferecne size for a CCG, and not just the selection of CCG opponents from distinct division round-robins which the ACC (and possibly the Big Ten) would like to regulate.

(05-15-2014 06:16 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Troy Schulte ‏@TroySchulteADG · 16m
Mohajir: "Unless there's a huge financial windfall, I don't seed what the purpose of having a game just to have a game."
Troy Schulte ‏@TroySchulteADG · 17m
Mohajir also stood firm on his stance against a champ. game for football, citing losses by Ohio State and Northern Illinois in 2013.


The examples cited by the Arkansas State AD are not good examples. Both Michigan State and Ohio State were undefeated in conference play when they met for the CCG. Both were top ten. This is the kind of game that you want in a CCG. The loss cost Ohio State a national championship game, but they still ended up in a BCS bowl. They might have been able to overcome the loss if they had not played such a soft schedule.

Northern Illlinois was unbeaten but their strength of schedule was not that impressive. They gave up 35 points to Idaho and had to come from behind to win that game in the 4th quarter. Their defense was suspect and Bowling Green exposed it. Bowling Green was 7-1 in winning their division, so playing them in the CCG was not going to hurt their strength of schedule.

The CCG is not going to be a huge financial windfall compared to a conference like the Big Ten, but it is additional revenue and it is exposure on ESPN. It will allow the SBC to at least get a look-in at a better TV deal with ESPN. There are so many new markets and schools that it would be in the best interest of the SBC to at least see what ESPN will do.

The Arkansas State AD might have a stronger case if he could cite examples of where a CCG cost a team a bowl berth because of the weakness of the other division winner. Ohio State and Northern Illinois were not good examples. They were not the best teams in their conferences.
























Troy Schulte ‏@TroySchulteADG · 18m
Mohajir doesn't expect #SunBelt to add a 12th member this year: "I think we're going to hold probably tight with where we are right now."


Expand  Reply
 Retweet

 Favorite


 More















Troy Schulte ‏@TroySchulteADG · 18m
While waiting, I'll pass along some comments from #ArkSt's Terry Mohajir from the caravan in NLR.


Expand

All this talk of having a CCG or not having one really doesn't matter.
When P.T. Barnum Benton starts jiving and juking about this or that
anything can happen. We may get rid of part of the conference or add
three teams.

Bring in NMSU for all sports, show Idaho the door, play a round robin schedule and determine a champion the old fashion way.

(05-17-2014 07:04 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  Bring in NMSU for all sports, show Idaho the door, play a round robin schedule and determine a champion the old fashion way.

No NMSU without UMASS. UMASS is an excellent academic school with a top notch reputation and football in better shape than NMSU or Idaho. Not to mention the program investments in talent and facilities currently underway.

(05-17-2014 07:48 AM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 07:04 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  Bring in NMSU for all sports, show Idaho the door, play a round robin schedule and determine a champion the old fashion way.

No NMSU without UMASS. UMASS is an excellent academic school with a top notch reputation and football in better shape than NMSU or Idaho. Not to mention the program investments in talent and facilities currently underway.

I think that's the thinking of the teams in the east. As I posted back in early March, the interest in UMASS would be contigent upon NMSU coming on board in all sports.

The thinking in our neck of the woods is that we can swallow the NMSU addition IF it brings some divisional alignment in the appropriate sports. At least in the minds of Georgia Southern and App State, this would be a step towards a conference championship game.

I can't speak for the App State fans, but here is the reason that a lot of Georgia Southern fans had initial interest in moving toward a CGC. The CGC was part of the 'carrot' lured to us to move to the Sun Belt, and that was being eligible THIS YEAR to participate in a championship game. That may seem inconsequential to the existing members of the Sun Belt, however for teams like Georgia Southern and Appalachian, that was kind of like shoving a fresh, hot Krispy Kreme donut in our face

With the changes, transitions and rule changes, I can now see the rationale for not rushing toward a CGC, but that really provides little 'political' cover to our own AD who had used the CGC eligibility as a calming element to some of our fanbase who were nutted up about having two years of "nothing to play for". So he'll probably hold to that view, and that's fine. He has to balance keeping the constituency happy as well as working with his fellow AD's.

Whatever happens, we'll get past it and more importantly we'll be a solid member that works well with the group. I've made quite a few trips in the past to Idaho, New Mexico and Massachussetts and personally don't give a flip if we're traveling there with regularity as part of this conference. UMASS is bound to get better quickly, Whipple is a damn good coach and will turn them around.

Oh, and as just an aside, I don't think Liberty has ever come CLOSE to having enough support to get in the Sun Belt. Having followed the SoCon for quite a while (20+ years), and interacted with quite a few coaches, AD's and faculty advisors ... they don't really have a place to go out of the Big South. The SoCon definitely isn't interested in them, or they would have added them already.

(05-17-2014 08:01 AM)Eagle22 Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 07:48 AM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 07:04 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  Bring in NMSU for all sports, show Idaho the door, play a round robin schedule and determine a champion the old fashion way.

No NMSU without UMASS. UMASS is an excellent academic school with a top notch reputation and football in better shape than NMSU or Idaho. Not to mention the program investments in talent and facilities currently underway.

I think that's the thinking of the teams in the east. As I posted back in early March, the interest in UMASS would be contigent upon NMSU coming on board in all sports.

The thinking in our neck of the woods is that we can swallow the NMSU addition IF it brings some divisional alignment in the appropriate sports. At least in the minds of Georgia Southern and App State, this would be a step towards a conference championship game.

I can't speak for the App State fans, but here is the reason that a lot of Georgia Southern fans had initial interest in moving toward a CGC. The CGC was part of the 'carrot' lured to us to move to the Sun Belt, and that was being eligible THIS YEAR to participate in a championship game. That may seem inconsequential to the existing members of the Sun Belt, however for teams like Georgia Southern and Appalachian, that was kind of like shoving a fresh, hot Krispy Kreme donut in our face

With the changes, transitions and rule changes, I can now see the rationale for not rushing toward a CGC, but that really provides little 'political' cover to our own AD who had used the CGC eligibility as a calming element to some of our fanbase who were nutted up about having two years of "nothing to play for". So he'll probably hold to that view, and that's fine. He has to balance keeping the constituency happy as well as working with his fellow AD's.

Whatever happens, we'll get past it and more importantly we'll be a solid member that works well with the group. I've made quite a few trips in the past to Idaho, New Mexico and Massachussetts and personally don't give a flip if we're traveling there with regularity as part of this conference. UMASS is bound to get better quickly, Whipple is a damn good coach and will turn them around.

Oh, and as just an aside, I don't think Liberty has ever come CLOSE to having enough support to get in the Sun Belt. Having followed the SoCon for quite a while (20+ years), and interacted with quite a few coaches, AD's and faculty advisors ... they don't really have a place to go out of the Big South. The SoCon definitely isn't interested in them, or they would have added them already.

I do appreciate you giving an actual reason why Georgia Southern wants 12 and a championship game. I sensed that some of it might be some "nothing to play for" hangover from you and App but wasn't sure. So this is some confirmation of that feeling.

That will pass. When there is no playoff to play for, every game is a playoff. The playoffs start the first day of the season.

What doesn't pass so quickly is having half your league show up on the Bottom 10. That gets in people's minds and it is a stigma that lasts for years no matter how much the league improves.

We had no choice but to add teams that we wouldn't have added the year before. Teams that have been struggling. Teams that (at the moment) are potential Bottom 10 material if they slip. We are skeptical about adding more struggling teams. What is the rush? What is the compelling reason for us to potentially dilute our quality by swallowing all of this in one big bite. I don't see the compelling reason.

We finally started to change some of that stigma from years past by staying off the Bottom 10 and winning against our nearest competitors. We are skittish about anything that would reverse the progress and lead us back into the situation where the Bottom 10 is the Sun Belt. Because that is the most damaging thing of all to everyone.

There is no reason to try to hurriedly reach a critical mass of transition teams or struggling teams or refugees. We want to maintain our reputation as an improving conference at the same time we are absorbing newbies. We don't want to start over.

We have to be careful about who we add and when we add them and how they are perceived.

(05-17-2014 08:55 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 08:01 AM)Eagle22 Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 07:48 AM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 07:04 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  Bring in NMSU for all sports, show Idaho the door, play a round robin schedule and determine a champion the old fashion way.

No NMSU without UMASS. UMASS is an excellent academic school with a top notch reputation and football in better shape than NMSU or Idaho. Not to mention the program investments in talent and facilities currently underway.

I think that's the thinking of the teams in the east. As I posted back in early March, the interest in UMASS would be contigent upon NMSU coming on board in all sports.

The thinking in our neck of the woods is that we can swallow the NMSU addition IF it brings some divisional alignment in the appropriate sports. At least in the minds of Georgia Southern and App State, this would be a step towards a conference championship game.

I can't speak for the App State fans, but here is the reason that a lot of Georgia Southern fans had initial interest in moving toward a CGC. The CGC was part of the 'carrot' lured to us to move to the Sun Belt, and that was being eligible THIS YEAR to participate in a championship game. That may seem inconsequential to the existing members of the Sun Belt, however for teams like Georgia Southern and Appalachian, that was kind of like shoving a fresh, hot Krispy Kreme donut in our face

With the changes, transitions and rule changes, I can now see the rationale for not rushing toward a CGC, but that really provides little 'political' cover to our own AD who had used the CGC eligibility as a calming element to some of our fanbase who were nutted up about having two years of "nothing to play for". So he'll probably hold to that view, and that's fine. He has to balance keeping the constituency happy as well as working with his fellow AD's.

Whatever happens, we'll get past it and more importantly we'll be a solid member that works well with the group. I've made quite a few trips in the past to Idaho, New Mexico and Massachussetts and personally don't give a flip if we're traveling there with regularity as part of this conference. UMASS is bound to get better quickly, Whipple is a damn good coach and will turn them around.

Oh, and as just an aside, I don't think Liberty has ever come CLOSE to having enough support to get in the Sun Belt. Having followed the SoCon for quite a while (20+ years), and interacted with quite a few coaches, AD's and faculty advisors ... they don't really have a place to go out of the Big South. The SoCon definitely isn't interested in them, or they would have added them already.

I do appreciate you giving an actual reason why Georgia Southern wants 12 and a championship game. I sensed that some of it might be some "nothing to play for" hangover from you and App but wasn't sure. So this is some confirmation of that feeling.

That will pass. When there is no playoff to play for, every game is a playoff. The playoffs start the first day of the season.

What doesn't pass so quickly is having half your league show up on the Bottom 10. That gets in people's minds and it is a stigma that lasts for years no matter how much the league improves.

We had no choice but to add teams that we wouldn't have added the year before. Teams that have been struggling. Teams that (at the moment) are potential Bottom 10 material if they slip. We are skeptical about adding more struggling teams. What is the rush? What is the compelling reason for us to potentially dilute our quality by swallowing all of this in one big bite. I don't see the compelling reason.

We finally started to change some of that stigma from years past by staying off the Bottom 10 and winning against our nearest competitors. We are skittish about anything that would reverse the progress and lead us back into the situation where the Bottom 10 is the Sun Belt. Because that is the most damaging thing of all to everyone.

There is no reason to try to hurriedly reach a critical mass of transition teams or struggling teams or refugees. We want to maintain our reputation as an improving conference at the same time we are absorbing newbies. We don't want to start over.

We have to be careful about who we add and when we add them and how they are perceived.

Any team we invite will be an FBS needing a home, or a move-up FCS that will struggle. When you couple that fact with the need to let some schools we are interested in (JMU, EKU, MSU, UTC, etc.) get their development plans off the ground, it makes perfect sense to invite UMASS and get NMSU in all sports. All of this waiting for the right thing and being careful argument doesn't hold water when you can bring very highly regarded school like UMASS in as a temporary member. We have no idea what's going to happen in the next 2 years. With the constant rumbling of A-State and ULL fans on this board it leaves me with the impression they are both out the door at a moments notice, leaving the SBC at 9 teams and the same choices we have this year for new members.

UMASS is a logical choice to get to 12 as potential future members develop, and I'd be shocked if the presidents would say "no" to a flagship university with excellent academics if UMASS offered to share playoff money with the league to defray travel costs.

(05-17-2014 09:07 AM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 08:55 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 08:01 AM)Eagle22 Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 07:48 AM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  

(05-17-2014 07:04 AM)AppManDG Wrote:  Bring in NMSU for all sports, show Idaho the door, play a round robin schedule and determine a champion the old fashion way.

No NMSU without UMASS. UMASS is an excellent academic school with a top notch reputation and football in better shape than NMSU or Idaho. Not to mention the program investments in talent and facilities currently underway.

I think that's the thinking of the teams in the east. As I posted back in early March, the interest in UMASS would be contigent upon NMSU coming on board in all sports.

The thinking in our neck of the woods is that we can swallow the NMSU addition IF it brings some divisional alignment in the appropriate sports. At least in the minds of Georgia Southern and App State, this would be a step towards a conference championship game.

I can't speak for the App State fans, but here is the reason that a lot of Georgia Southern fans had initial interest in moving toward a CGC. The CGC was part of the 'carrot' lured to us to move to the Sun Belt, and that was being eligible THIS YEAR to participate in a championship game. That may seem inconsequential to the existing members of the Sun Belt, however for teams like Georgia Southern and Appalachian, that was kind of like shoving a fresh, hot Krispy Kreme donut in our face

With the changes, transitions and rule changes, I can now see the rationale for not rushing toward a CGC, but that really provides little 'political' cover to our own AD who had used the CGC eligibility as a calming element to some of our fanbase who were nutted up about having two years of "nothing to play for". So he'll probably hold to that view, and that's fine. He has to balance keeping the constituency happy as well as working with his fellow AD's.

Whatever happens, we'll get past it and more importantly we'll be a solid member that works well with the group. I've made quite a few trips in the past to Idaho, New Mexico and Massachussetts and personally don't give a flip if we're traveling there with regularity as part of this conference. UMASS is bound to get better quickly, Whipple is a damn good coach and will turn them around.

Oh, and as just an aside, I don't think Liberty has ever come CLOSE to having enough support to get in the Sun Belt. Having followed the SoCon for quite a while (20+ years), and interacted with quite a few coaches, AD's and faculty advisors ... they don't really have a place to go out of the Big South. The SoCon definitely isn't interested in them, or they would have added them already.

I do appreciate you giving an actual reason why Georgia Southern wants 12 and a championship game. I sensed that some of it might be some "nothing to play for" hangover from you and App but wasn't sure. So this is some confirmation of that feeling.

That will pass. When there is no playoff to play for, every game is a playoff. The playoffs start the first day of the season.

What doesn't pass so quickly is having half your league show up on the Bottom 10. That gets in people's minds and it is a stigma that lasts for years no matter how much the league improves.

We had no choice but to add teams that we wouldn't have added the year before. Teams that have been struggling. Teams that (at the moment) are potential Bottom 10 material if they slip. We are skeptical about adding more struggling teams. What is the rush? What is the compelling reason for us to potentially dilute our quality by swallowing all of this in one big bite. I don't see the compelling reason.

We finally started to change some of that stigma from years past by staying off the Bottom 10 and winning against our nearest competitors. We are skittish about anything that would reverse the progress and lead us back into the situation where the Bottom 10 is the Sun Belt. Because that is the most damaging thing of all to everyone.

There is no reason to try to hurriedly reach a critical mass of transition teams or struggling teams or refugees. We want to maintain our reputation as an improving conference at the same time we are absorbing newbies. We don't want to start over.

We have to be careful about who we add and when we add them and how they are perceived.

Any team we invite will be an FBS needing a home, or a move-up FCS that will struggle. When you couple that fact with the need to let some schools we are interested in (JMU, EKU, MSU, UTC, etc.) get their development plans off the ground, it makes perfect sense to invite UMASS and get NMSU in all sports. All of this waiting for the right thing and being careful argument doesn't hold water when you can bring very highly regarded school like UMASS in as a temporary member. We have no idea what's going to happen in the next 2 years. With the constant rumbling of A-State and ULL fans on this board it leaves me with the impression they are both out the door at a moments notice, leaving the SBC at 9 teams and the same choices we have this year for new members.

UMASS is a logical choice to get to 12 as potential future members develop, and I'd be shocked if the presidents would say "no" to a flagship university with excellent academics if UMASS offered to share playoff money with the league to defray travel costs.

Some of you guys need to realize that some of us have been playing this FBS game for years and that you don't necessarily know everything about it.

UMASS was just ditched by the MAC. Yet somehow you are portraying them as the logical choice, flagship, well respected, highly regarded.

That is not how they are perceived in FBS football. They are perceived as a refugee with bad football and a bad stadium with no bathrooms that will cut the throat of its football program if basketball is threatened. The marriage is perceived as two desperate ugly people in a marriage of desperation. Yet some of us are not desperate.

We went all over JMU but they couldn't get their board or their football-hating professors or their snooty fans to get on board and it gets portrayed as the Sun Belt getting snubbed and rejected by an FCS. Great job.

Yes, new teams will struggle. But we don't have to go out and grab every struggling team to try to make a critical mass of struggling teams. There is no EMERGENCY.

I doubt that UMASS has a better football program than NMSU or Idaho. They have won two games in two years.

E22 is mostly correct in his assessment (their are always vary degrees and views). I can't speak for App, but at GS we were dangled the carrot of potentially hosting a CCG. That was something that gave a lot of pro-FCS playoff fans something to consider and those fans that complained about not enough home games a reward for a great season. It was something GS fans could rally around and look forward to if the team did well. We would've moved up anyway, but the added bonus of hosting a CCG was icing on the cake for our fans.

Some on here keep falsely saying that the CCG would be held at a neutral site and be a money loser. NO, it'll be held (unless Benson and others have changed their minds) at the home of the school with the best record.

Having UMASS on a temp basis like Idaho and bringing in NMSU all sports is a viable option with little downside if negotiated correctly. Also, it allows other schools 2-3 years to get ready or simply except reality.

"I do appreciate you giving an actual reason why Georgia Southern wants 12 and a championship game. I sensed that some of it might be some "nothing to play for" hangover from you and App but wasn't sure. So this is some confirmation of that feeling."


Its more than that. A lot more. I can't speak for GSU, but when the deal was struck with AppState, the commitment to a championship game and a divisional structure was a key part to us saying "yes" and from day one when Benson came to campus he talked in great detail to the media, fans and boosters about the championship game that would be held on the campus of the highest ranked member, our ability to participate this year. This is a commitment and trust issue, and with any new partner in business or life, if there is a backtrack by one of the parties involved it gives those involved a reason for great concern... but here's the deal, I don't think the league has backtracked and here's why:

What we know is that a recently as March, the members of this conference re-affirmed their commitment to each other to a 12 team format for all sports. They authorized Benson to find new potential members. That we know. Without UMASS in the equation, staying at 11 based on JMU's reluctance and EKU not being ready would make sense. With UMASS reaching out to the conference to discuss membership (which we have confirmation from multiple sources is a fact), they have to get very serious consideration, and the presidents would be hard pressed to deny membership to a school of that caliber if they are willing to agree to an "Idaho -like" travel cost arrangement.

As disappointed as I was with the A-State AD from the tweets released from the booster event. His public comments on the radio yesterday make much more sense and are much more in harmony with what we know to be the case as far as the league's commitments and stated goals.