(03-26-2014 09:27 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 09:06 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 06:05 PM)CrazyCajun Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 03:32 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 03:24 PM)GaSoEagle Wrote:  You 2 are sort of the old guard now of the Sun Belt. How do you feel your school would view adding UMass as a football only member?

South Alabama is a founding member and has been a member fifteen years longer than Arkansas State and Louisiana.

Maybe you missed it, but he said football only. South Alabama is not a founding member in football. That honor goes to UL, ASU and Troy.

I still don't see why it matters, is football different than any other sport? Sure, but does it really differ that much when it comes to adding members even if it is just for football? It doesn't, but you disagreeing with me rates pretty low on the surprise scale.

And it's already been pointed out, but maybe you missed it Troy joined in 2004...

And it doesn't surprise me that you would find some reason to disagree with the obvious. It matters in this manner, they saved millions of dollors not playing football period for years. There was no true investment or commitment to NCAA football or the Sun Belt football brand for the initial years. So tell me once again why they should be mentioned in the same breathe as ASU, UL or ULM? Sorry you think that a program that wasn't willing to invest in football or build the Sun Belt football brand during the initial years deserves mention when discussing the initial founding Sun Belt football programs.

My point is they are the only member of the Sun Belt that's seen three full decades come and go, they've seen more schools leave and more schools join than anyone else. I just do not see how a proposed member being of a sport they're newish to sponsoring makes that much of a difference. They know the history and inner workings of this conference better than anyone and, to me, that's as important, if not morse so, than how long they've been sponsoring the sport in question.