(05-15-2014 10:35 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 10:32 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 10:14 PM)Florida Red Wolf Wrote:  I'm very pleased to know that the stAte AD is not only bright, but also very right and hopefully will stand strong at this time against this 12th team issue. Bringing in some FCS school just to have a game is silly, particularly when rules may very well change to allow such a game. And I do not understand the App and Ga. Southern fans even remotely favoring such a move. You have good programs and have fought hard for the FBS status you earned. Why would you want to lower that value by bringing in a poor FCS team for the sake of some game that will cost money to your school and produce small ratings? We need to get off this FCS thing and grow the conference into a league worthy of much better member schools than have been mentioned here for what seems like the past two years.

You have no high ground here. These are the same folks that extended an invitation to Idaho and NMSU. Not inviting Liberty is a separate issue. Can't claim the lowering value argument on UMASS with the two western members the SBC voted in last year. Something is rotten around here if we stay at 11 AND refuse to play a championship game after legislation passes to deregulate championships.

The legislation hasn't passed and we haven't voted to not follow it so let's save that until it actually happens.

Your AD made it pretty clear he sees no value in one so at least we know where he stands anyway...

(05-15-2014 10:33 PM)Campaign4Liberty Wrote:  I have to yawn a lot here. Everyone is getting all bent out of shape over twitter comments and a CCG. No SBC for LU? No worries. We'll just schedule as many SBC teams as possible OOC in all sports and take it to you that way. Remember this day 20 years from now - we will be light years ahead of the SBC. I'm not sure you guys really understand what you're missing here and where Liberty is going. When you have a billion dollars cash, your own TV network, a first class AD who spent 13 years in the SEC, a President who loves to build, combined with a chip on your shoulder, watch out. This will be good fun, I really hope we schedule SBC schools in all sports quite often.

Liberty needs to insist on a waiver to go FBS independent. I think there is a good case to be made that Liberty is excluded from FBS because of the conference invite rule in combination with their private religious status.

I have nothing against your private religious status. It just doesn't fit with the SBC. I think you deserve FBS independent status and would be happy to see the SBC schedule you OOC when you get it.

No need to be bitter.

(05-15-2014 10:38 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  This is a nasty little thread.

Nobody has yet made the case for the benefits of a championship game other than "we need one" and "it may help one of our teams get into the playoff".

Well, there isn't a sponsor lined up for a championship game and nobody with the league has really made a case for whether the championship game will actually make enough money to be worth adding another team, or any money for that matter. Even then we don't know if 12 will even be required for a championship game.

Even then we've yet to have a Top 25 team and are worried about hurrying up to have a championship game so we have a better chance of getting into the playoffs? A favored team beating a lesser SBC team in a championship game isn't going to really impress the playoff selection committee.

Our main worry is starting to get teams into the Top 25 and we'll do that on the back of beating P5 OOC teams along with not stumbling in conference. Beating the P5 teams is the key....losing to another SBC team is the stumbling block to overcome. Now if we start making some noise in the Top 25 with a couple of teams then maybe a championship game starts to look like the next step in starting to convince a playoff committee. But that is not our situation right now.

This whole thing seems to be more "we want the same toy the big boys have" rather than any sort of actual logical case made for how a championship game is actually going to get us where we want to go.

Do any sponsors want to PAY US to have a championship game? Has anybody expressed a desire to PAY US to televise a championship game? Where is the actual neutral study by an outside party showing that we will all be financially better off adding a random 12th school and having a championship game? Is that alleged financial windfall worth the risk of losing an access bowl slot because of a USM/Houston situation?

It's up to those advocating for a championship game and quick addition to run the numbers and show the money and I haven't yet seen it.

Bean counters cannot prove a reward for holding a CCG until everything is tied up and presented in a nice box and bow.
Simple fact, you do not have a chance at a SBC team reaching the Access Bowl without a CCG.

(05-15-2014 10:50 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  Your AD made it pretty clear he sees no value in one so at least we know where he stands anyway...

Apparently he stands with the spreadsheets.

It is up to those who want the championship game to show the numbers to prove it is worthwhile. Not the other way around.

(05-15-2014 10:43 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(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 wam 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?

Idaho and NMSU were added because there was an existential crisis going on at the time.

I asked you guys to stop peeing on my leg. I remember that existential crisis of 2013... The one that forced us to invite the crappiest teams in FBS. Ah well. We will stay at 11 and wait until the TBA mystery team that will improve our conference arrives.

(05-15-2014 10:34 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 10:33 PM)Campaign4Liberty Wrote:  I have to yawn a lot here. Everyone is getting all bent out of shape over twitter comments and a CCG. No SBC for LU? No worries. We'll just schedule as many SBC teams as possible OOC in all sports and take it to you that way. Remember this day 20 years from now - we will be light years ahead of the SBC. I'm not sure you guys really understand what you're missing here and where Liberty is going. When you have a billion dollars cash, your own TV network, a first class AD who spent 13 years in the SEC, a President who loves to build, combined with a chip on your shoulder, watch out. This will be good fun, I really hope we schedule SBC schools in all sports quite often.

The grapes are turning sour already.

But this guy already told us that Liberty AND JMU applied to the Sun Belt and that one of us was THE TEAM! How could somebody that in tune with the process be disappointed/upset/surprised by this development. I'm shocked.

(05-15-2014 10:25 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  And so this dude takes it upon himself to speak for the conference before the schools meet next week? No. This is his personal opinion. Not wanting to play a championship game by citing upsets last year in championship games can be called a business decision if you want, but it is made out of fear. That is the Right word. NIU didn't deserve to be in a BCS bowl last year if they can't get it done on the field. Then he says something else: he WOULD risk a championship game if it was LUCRATIVE. Nothing to be proud of in anything that this guy said.

You might need to re-read what was written... He said he saw no reason to add a game solely for the sake of adding a game, unless there's a huge financial windfall.

THEN, later noted the potential pitfalls of a championship game.

It's not the other way around.

Further, do you honestly think he's going to make a bold statement about standing pat if it wasn't going to come through? stAte is a major player in Sun Belt politics. He's not dumb.

(05-15-2014 10:52 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 10:38 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  This is a nasty little thread.

Nobody has yet made the case for the benefits of a championship game other than "we need one" and "it may help one of our teams get into the playoff".

Well, there isn't a sponsor lined up for a championship game and nobody with the league has really made a case for whether the championship game will actually make enough money to be worth adding another team, or any money for that matter. Even then we don't know if 12 will even be required for a championship game.

Even then we've yet to have a Top 25 team and are worried about hurrying up to have a championship game so we have a better chance of getting into the playoffs? A favored team beating a lesser SBC team in a championship game isn't going to really impress the playoff selection committee.

Our main worry is starting to get teams into the Top 25 and we'll do that on the back of beating P5 OOC teams along with not stumbling in conference. Beating the P5 teams is the key....losing to another SBC team is the stumbling block to overcome. Now if we start making some noise in the Top 25 with a couple of teams then maybe a championship game starts to look like the next step in starting to convince a playoff committee. But that is not our situation right now.

This whole thing seems to be more "we want the same toy the big boys have" rather than any sort of actual logical case made for how a championship game is actually going to get us where we want to go.

Do any sponsors want to PAY US to have a championship game? Has anybody expressed a desire to PAY US to televise a championship game? Where is the actual neutral study by an outside party showing that we will all be financially better off adding a random 12th school and having a championship game? Is that alleged financial windfall worth the risk of losing an access bowl slot because of a USM/Houston situation?

It's up to those advocating for a championship game and quick addition to run the numbers and show the money and I haven't yet seen it.

Bean counters cannot prove a reward for holding a CCG until everything is tied up and presented in a nice box and bow.
Simple fact, you do not have a chance at a SBC team reaching the Access Bowl without a CCG.

The way to an access bowl slot is beating a couple of P5 teams OOC that turn out to not be terrible P5 teams, and then going undefeated in the SBC.

The number of scenarios where beating yet another SBC team with a record less than yours vaults you into an access bowl slot seem....small.

(05-15-2014 08:09 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 07:39 PM)statefanatic Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 06:57 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 06:50 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  This is what I expected --- staying at 11. But it does seem a bit odd that in March when SBC leaders met at the basketball tourney our AD returned saying that the conference had voted to expand to 12.

Now we don't seem to want 12 or a championship game.

What I conclude here is that the prospective candidates (which appear to be Liberty and UMass at this point) are simply not very enticing to the membership. So instead of saying we don't have a good candidate it is easier to say that we don't think it is very lucrative to have a championship game.

Read the comments closely. This is one AD saying he is afraid of competition and doesn't want another home game during a good season because he is afraid of an upset. I'm so glad that A-State speaks for the entire league and has declared the search over... And that the conference has no interest in a championship game even if we can have one with 11 schools.

A CCG has cost CUSA and the MAC a BCS bowl game before. Unless there is money gained from a CCG then why have one?

No SBC school has ever won more than 10 games in a football season so is it a moot point?

When's the last time Umass has been anywhere close to relevant in football!

(05-15-2014 10:52 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Bean counters cannot prove a reward for holding a CCG until everything is tied up and presented in a nice box and bow.

You are so far off base that it isn't even comical on this.

(05-15-2014 10:52 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Simple fact, you do not have a chance at a SBC team reaching the Access Bowl without a CCG.

Fact? I'd like to see some support for this. Is it a rule out there that prevents a non championship game winner reaching an access bowl? Or perhaps some form of proposed legislation?

Sounds more like a personal opinion.

I would like to hear from the CAJUNS on all this.Anybody listening in Lafayette?

(05-15-2014 11:09 PM)RustonCAT Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 08:09 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 07:39 PM)statefanatic Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 06:57 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 06:50 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  This is what I expected --- staying at 11. But it does seem a bit odd that in March when SBC leaders met at the basketball tourney our AD returned saying that the conference had voted to expand to 12.

Now we don't seem to want 12 or a championship game.

What I conclude here is that the prospective candidates (which appear to be Liberty and UMass at this point) are simply not very enticing to the membership. So instead of saying we don't have a good candidate it is easier to say that we don't think it is very lucrative to have a championship game.

Read the comments closely. This is one AD saying he is afraid of competition and doesn't want another home game during a good season because he is afraid of an upset. I'm so glad that A-State speaks for the entire league and has declared the search over... And that the conference has no interest in a championship game even if we can have one with 11 schools.

A CCG has cost CUSA and the MAC a BCS bowl game before. Unless there is money gained from a CCG then why have one?

No SBC school has ever won more than 10 games in a football season so is it a moot point?

When's the last time Umass has been anywhere close to relevant in football!

2006. They were in the FCS National Championship game against AppState.

(05-15-2014 11:03 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  Further, do you honestly think he's going to make a bold statement about standing pat if it wasn't going to come through? stAte is a major player in Sun Belt politics. He's not dumb.

The whole thing may still be in flux. He may not know how it will turn out yet. But it is certainly preparing the ground for a possible addition of nobody.

Benson made a lot of clear statements about how we would definitely go to 12. These statements may be for the purpose of gently placing a safety net under Mr. Benson in case it doesn't turn out that way.

How much of the App State angst over the CCG is because a CCG is sort of an FCS playoff-like element?

Not saying thats not a valid interest. Just wondering if that plays any part in the desire?

(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?

This group made a terrible mistake, they hired a fool to lead them down the road to prosperity. He used fear during conference realignment to push the addition of Idaho and NMSU when the prudent move would have been to sit tight and travel the road carefully.

He will lead this conference into the ground (just as he did the WAC) if they let him have any real input. He'll hit every pothole in the road because he's a certified fool.

Hopefully, this group has learned that Karl has no answers and will can his idiot arse.

Maybe they have learned something if they go against his stupid recommendation to keep on recklessly adding teams that don't fit the profile the league set forth several years back.

I certainly hope so and can sense that the A-State administration sees Karl as the moron he is.

(05-15-2014 11:03 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 10:25 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  And so this dude takes it upon himself to speak for the conference before the schools meet next week? No. This is his personal opinion. Not wanting to play a championship game by citing upsets last year in championship games can be called a business decision if you want, but it is made out of fear. That is the Right word. NIU didn't deserve to be in a BCS bowl last year if they can't get it done on the field. Then he says something else: he WOULD risk a championship game if it was LUCRATIVE. Nothing to be proud of in anything that this guy said.

You might need to re-read what was written... He said he saw no reason to add a game solely for the sake of adding a game, unless there's a huge financial windfall.

THEN, later noted the potential pitfalls of a championship game.

It's not the other way around.

Further, do you honestly think he's going to make a bold statement about standing pat if it wasn't going to come through? stAte is a major player in Sun Belt politics. He's not dumb.

Not dumb - but does effectively eliminate the Sun Belt from serious
consideration for the Access Bowl. Not dumb maybe, but not smart either in that respect.
Does anyone else feel like France surrendering? MAC, CUSA, AAC, and MWC should be happy at least.

(05-15-2014 11:11 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  I would like to hear from the CAJUNS on all this.Anybody listening in Lafayette?

No one has the votes right now.....

(05-15-2014 11:03 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 10:25 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  And so this dude takes it upon himself to speak for the conference before the schools meet next week? No. This is his personal opinion. Not wanting to play a championship game by citing upsets last year in championship games can be called a business decision if you want, but it is made out of fear. That is the Right word. NIU didn't deserve to be in a BCS bowl last year if they can't get it done on the field. Then he says something else: he WOULD risk a championship game if it was LUCRATIVE. Nothing to be proud of in anything that this guy said.

You might need to re-read what was written... He said he saw no reason to add a game solely for the sake of adding a game, unless there's a huge financial windfall.

THEN, later noted the potential pitfalls of a championship game.

It's not the other way around.

Further, do you honestly think he's going to make a bold statement about standing pat if it wasn't going to come through? stAte is a major player in Sun Belt politics. He's not dumb.

This is clearly a troll effort, truth be damned he wants to spin.

(05-15-2014 11:19 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Not dumb - but does effectively eliminate the Sun Belt from serious consideration for the Access Bowl.

How do you figure?

(05-15-2014 11:19 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  but does effectively eliminate the Sun Belt from serious
consideration for the Access Bowl.

This statement keeps being made but there is no evidence for it.

We don't have a championship game right now and Louisiana is being touted by some for the Cotton Bowl.

If the Cajuns beat Boise, Ole Miss and LaTech and don't stumble in conference they will be under serious consideration.

If they do stumble in conference or lose those then no SBC championship game imaginable could repair that and put them into the Cotton Bowl.