CSNbbs
August Ask The Commissioner - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: SunBeltbbs (/forum-317.html)
+---- Forum: Sun Belt Conference Talk (/forum-296.html)
+---- Thread: August Ask The Commissioner (/thread-14105.html)

Pages: 1 2


- DC_Clone - 08-02-2004 11:38 AM

<a href='http://www.sunbeltsports.org/info/askthecommissioner#PASTQUESTIONS' target='_blank'>http://www.sunbeltsports.org/info/asktheco...r#PASTQUESTIONS</a>


- rideOrDieTop - 08-02-2004 01:16 PM

Seems like WW is avoiding the topic of WKU going IA in the SBC. What's the deal???


- Hilltopper2K - 08-02-2004 01:29 PM

Seems like WW is avoiding the topic of WKU going IA in the SBC. What's the deal???

Yeah, not even the obligatory 'that is up to the administration of the individual institution and should they choose to make that move we will welcome them with open arms...'

He did say that Greg Taylor was "right on target" which I guess means to say that WW would prefer for WKU to join the Sunbelt.


- galojah - 08-02-2004 03:28 PM

Probably because WW is tired of crying at the feet of WKU adminstration for us to go 1-A and has accepted we aren't and has moved on.


- CAJUNNATION - 08-02-2004 04:13 PM

WKU Topper Jeff Wrote:Probably because WW is tired of crying at the feet of WKU adminstration for us to go 1-A and has accepted we aren't and has moved on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temple is stupid if they go football only in the Sun Belt. Why bother having the sport.

The MAC is very interested in Temple... VERY. But the MAC will only take them as a whole, including Basketball. Chaney is against that, and he seems to run the athletic department there. Temple's administration needs to do what is best, IF they plan on keeping 1-A football, and go to the MAC. Chaney is going to retire soon anyway.

If Temple goes to the MAC, the MAC would need one more school to join with them........ any guesses ? WKU! ! !

That is our hope. END QUOTE

Is this you too Jeff?

Why don't you guys just leave now?

Ohhh. That's right. Nobody has asked for you to join them. 05-nono


- galojah - 08-02-2004 07:30 PM

Yes that is me.

I stand by what I said. Temple would be silly to bring football only to the SBC. They are not in the SBC footprint, it would cost a lot for them to travel and right now the benefits and money in the SBC I doubt would compensate.

As for my interest in WKU going to the MAC. My desire for WKU to go to the MAC is no different than UNT fans really wanting to go to CUSA, even several ULL fans on their boards wanted to go to the CUSA. I've heard the same from MTSU fans who are mad that Memphis keeps blocking them from the CUSA. I am happy with the SBC, but I see no harm in hoping to see my team in a more profitable and respected conference. I am a WKU alum and fan foremost.

Obviously right now WKU doesn't think 1-A in the Sun Belt would reap the rewards that we need to make the move. WKU wants to go 1-A. If the Sun Belt brought in enough money to make it profitable, we'd be there already. President Gary Ransdell has said that in newspaper quotes. So at this time we are going to upgrade our facilities (32 million+ and 8-9K more seats probably), see if that makes us more marketable. That is exactly what UNT is doing by getting baseball. No one wanted them, so they take the steps to make themselves more marketable in the future. I am sure LaTech has the same game plan.

Don't tell me you aren't looking out for the best interests of ULL, over the interests of SBC. Every school is doing that. I would hope if a great oppritunity comes up for ULL, you guys would take it.


- DC_Clone - 08-02-2004 07:35 PM

Temple as a football only conference member really wouldn't be a problem. One trip to Philly every other year isn't a big deal. I don't know what effect they have on the market, but Philly is in the top ten I beleive. It the Sun Belt does get a football only member, it will most probably be Temple.


- SwampHound - 08-02-2004 07:40 PM

MeanGreen61 Wrote:Temple as a football only conference member really wouldn't be a problem. One trip to Philly every other year isn't a big deal. I don't know what effect they have on the market, but Philly is in the top ten I beleive. It the Sun Belt does get a football only member, it will most probably be Temple.
God, I hope not. Temple vs. (insert any SBC team here), would that be any more attractive to SBC fans than vs. Idaho or Utah State or New Mexico State (I know UNT has a long rivalry with them). Point is, nothing against any of those programs but is there any interest from our fans standpoint or Temple's fans either? I doubt it. IMHO, if we are adding Temple just to get to nine, then it is not worth it.


- CAJUNNATION - 08-02-2004 07:52 PM

WKU Topper Jeff Wrote:Yes that is me.

I stand by what I said. Temple would be silly to bring football only to the SBC. They are not in the SBC footprint, it would cost a lot for them to travel and right now the benefits and money in the SBC I doubt would compensate.

As for my interest in WKU going to the MAC. My desire for WKU to go to the MAC is no different than UNT fans really wanting to go to CUSA, even several ULL fans on their boards wanted to go to the CUSA. I've heard the same from MTSU fans who are mad that Memphis keeps blocking them from the CUSA. I am happy with the SBC, but I see no harm in hoping to see my team in a more profitable and respected conference. I am a WKU alum and fan foremost.

Obviously right now WKU doesn't think 1-A in the Sun Belt would reap the rewards that we need to make the move. WKU wants to go 1-A. If the Sun Belt brought in enough money to make it profitable, we'd be there already. President Gary Ransdell has said that in newspaper quotes. So at this time we are going to upgrade our facilities (32 million+ and 8-9K more seats probably), see if that makes us more marketable. That is exactly what UNT is doing by getting baseball. No one wanted them, so they take the steps to make themselves more marketable in the future. I am sure LaTech has the same game plan.

Don't tell me you aren't looking out for the best interests of ULL, over the interests of SBC. Every school is doing that. I would hope if a great oppritunity comes up for ULL, you guys would take it.
I don't begrudge anything to anybody looking to improve themselves.

The problem I have and a growing number of other BELT fans have with WKU people is that it seems you want it both ways. You want to be in a better conference. Yet, you want to wait until they call you to go 1-A . You would claim it's just smart business. We say it shows a lack of confidence in yourself and your conference brethren.

How is it possible for most of the other 'BELT schools to be on a 1-A level and still afford to undertake massive facility and funding improvements?

We're earning our stripes. You want to be given yours.


- Tulsa_Golden_Hurricane - 08-02-2004 08:50 PM

Temple is in a tough spot. They really don't fit in with the Sun Belt.

The rumor is that the MAC offered Temple a football only invite on the condition that Temple plays 4 men's basketball games per year against MAC schools. Chaney supposedly didn't like that so the deal has been rejected.

I can't see the MAC budging and I don't see anywhere else for Temple so they may just eventually agree. Chaney is really screwing Temple by wanting to stick with the A-10 and making it impossible for their football program to get into another conference.


As for the MAC, giving what looks like will be the new attendance regulations I think adding Temple and another school or two will be needed to stay at 12 schools within the next 3-4 years.


- SwampHound - 08-02-2004 09:04 PM

rocketfootball Wrote:Temple is in a tough spot. They really don't fit in with the Sun Belt.

The rumor is that the MAC offered Temple a football only invite on the condition that Temple plays 4 men's basketball games per year against MAC schools. Chaney supposedly didn't like that so the deal has been rejected.

I can't see the MAC budging and I don't see anywhere else for Temple so they may just eventually agree. Chaney is really screwing Temple by wanting to stick with the A-10 and making it impossible for their football program to get into another conference.


As for the MAC, giving what looks like will be the new attendance regulations I think adding Temple and another school or two will be needed to stay at 12 schools within the next 3-4 years.
Let's say the attendence requirement is enforced, which MAC schools do you think will be in trouble?


- galojah - 08-02-2004 09:30 PM

Quote:We're earning our stripes. You want to be given yours.

It is really simple. As long as going 1-A in the Sun Belt is not profitable fo WKU, WKU won't do it. It is really that simple. That IS good business.


- DC_Clone - 08-02-2004 09:35 PM

Going to 9 would give a 4 home 4 away for conference play. Temple is noted more for basketball than football, but does have a certain amount of name ID. Believe there would be more pluses than minuses to having Temple as a football only member at this time.

FYI the crowd for New Mexico State's last visit to Denton was over 20,000 and Temple did draw one of MTSU's better crowds last year. :)


- WIAggie - 08-03-2004 12:04 AM

What about Navy?

could they be that 9th team WW was taking about?


- wkufreakyfan - 08-03-2004 08:51 AM

I've voiced my opinion on this before, and I'll do it again. The sunbelt is holding us back and a few other schools back. The belt was great back when we had jacksonville, and VA commenwelth,and some other schools--now its a laughing stock.
I have nothing against most of the schools in the belt--I want to see you guys improve in every way(ULALA, and MTSU)... Talking about us going to I-A football, well, I don't really see crowds jumping at the chance to go to a game between the Cajuns vs idaho, or the aggies vs. some crappy team. Your stadiums are mostly empty, and why would we go I-A right now at this point in time if that would be our fate too.
Here's to a great football and basketball season for everyone in the belt and gateway conferences...
GO TOPS


- rideOrDieTop - 08-03-2004 09:31 AM

I think I can speak for every Topper fan and say that we would love for the SBC to be the top non-bcs conference in the nation. We would love to be able to stay put and fill our arena and stadium for every game played. We've definitely seen WW make some improvements in the league and we expect to see it to continue to improve. However, if a situation presents itself to us that will guarantee increased revenue and better attendance in the immediate future we would have to jump at that opportunity.


Let's get 2 NCAA bids in Men's and Women's BB this year. Let's win some out of conference FB games.


Go SBC!
Go Tops!


- CAJUNNATION - 08-03-2004 10:27 AM

I rest my case.


- arkstfan - 08-03-2004 10:38 AM

1. WKU will almost certainly end up in I-A in the Belt.
- Timing is a big issue as is what the rules for I-A membership will be.
- It appears clear that the NCAA Board of Directors is at a minimum going to "tweak" the rules. You need to know what the rules are going to be before investing.
- The revenue picture needs to clear up. Right now we don't know what the total BCS revenue will be and we don't know how the revenue will be split when a non-full BCS member makes the field (we know that the school making it has to give part of the revenue to members of the other 4 non-BCS leagues, we just don't know how much).

2. If the rules remain unchanged everyone needs 5 I-A home games and that is best accomplished with a 4-4 league schedule. The Belt needs one more team to do that. Temple likewise will need 5 I-A home games to remain I-A and available games are few and far between in late October and November. Temple/Sun Belt if it were to happen would be more like dating than a marriage. That said, I have my doubts about Temple. How do you continue to fund football when you lose $3-$4 million in BCS revenue?

3. If the Belt is holding back WKU then the Toppers need to get the hell out. Not an insult just a fact. A conference is supposed to be an association for the benefit of the members. If a member is worse off then they need out. Problem with the equation is that you have to have someplace to go. WKU does not. The MoValley seems to be adamant that once St. Louis turned them down that they had no further expansion interest. The A-10 is at 14 and expansion probably isn't an option there. The next options, Colonial and Horizon have room but haven't made an invite. It would likely be more accurate to say that WKU has gone as far as it can in the Sun Belt without having made itself attractive to another peer group (though I doubt that is true). One thing is certain. Some avenues of are closed to WKU due to football, namely the MAC and CUSA, though it can be argued that the MAC is no real advancement in basketball given that the MAC was rated only 0.64 better in Sagarin as a group (amazingly close given that the MAC's top team was rated 30 some spots above the Belt's top and the Belt's bottom was 28 spots below the MAC's bottom). By contrast the Big 10 at #5 was rated 2.12 above #6 CUSA.


- Tulsa_Golden_Hurricane - 08-03-2004 11:23 AM

SwampHound Wrote:
rocketfootball Wrote:Temple is in a tough spot.&nbsp; They really don't fit in with the Sun Belt.

The rumor is that the MAC offered Temple a football only invite on the condition that Temple plays 4 men's basketball games per year against MAC schools.&nbsp; Chaney supposedly didn't like that so the deal has been rejected.

I can't see the MAC budging and I don't see anywhere else for Temple so they may just eventually agree.&nbsp; Chaney is really screwing Temple by wanting to stick with the A-10 and making it impossible for their football program to get into another conference.


As for the MAC, giving what looks like will be the new attendance regulations I think adding Temple and another school or two will be needed to stay at 12 schools within the next 3-4 years.
Let's say the attendence requirement is enforced, which MAC schools do you think will be in trouble?
Kent State is in serious trouble. Eastern Michigan and Buffalo could be too. Outside of that, the rest just might be OK but you never know.


- galojah - 08-03-2004 11:34 AM

I'll say it again, when it is profitable for WKU to go 1A, be it in the MAC or SBC, that is when we'll do it. Our president is big on the bottom figures. We are losing some money now on football... we'd have to be at a better fiscal position for us to make the move. Believe me, if SBC football would make us more money and fill seats, we would have made the move long ago. Obviously, their is something that is holding us from making that move. President Ransdell said it very well in an article <a href='http://www.bgdailynews.com/articles/stories/public/200406/18/0dDW_sports.html' target='_blank'>article</a> recently.

This is clearly our position right now:

[quote]
I-A football could be coming
Ransdell says new BCS revenue might make move possible

By OJ Stapleton, ojstapleton@bgdailynews.com -- 270-783-3239

Friday, June 18, 2004

In an interesting move, the Sun Belt Conference presidents selected Western Kentucky President Gary Ransdell to represent the league in talks concerning the distribution of possible football money.

The Bowl Championship Series, which previously included only the top six Division I-A leagues, recently adopted a new formula which would give the five lower-tier conferences a piece of the multimillion dollar pie.

The six original BCS members – the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Southeastern Conference, the Big Ten, the Big 12, the Big East and the PAC 10 – will each get one share (about 9 percent) of the total revenue created by the various bowl games. The other five conferences – Conference USA, the Mountain West Conference, the Western Athletic Conference, the Mid-American Conference and the Sun Belt – will each split one share evenly.

“This is not some huge windfall,