(03-28-2014 06:12 PM)msu_bears Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 05:53 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 05:36 PM)msu_bears Wrote:  honest question, why does UMass get a free pass to be a football only member, yet if Missouri State or JMU fans ask about football only invites we would get laughed off this board? all 3 are basketball schools who are currently in better basketball leagues so why do you give 2 of those schools the all sports ultimatum to join but not the other, seems a little unfair to me considering Umass football isn't anymore impressive.
MSU/JMU as football only members would be a better combo than having both Idaho/Umass IMHO when considering geography, culture, and potential.

UMass doesn't need our help to become FBS.

give JMU a few more scholarships and they are easily a more attractive football only add than Umass, why does it matter if they need your help or not? just because it gives you a power trip to dangle a FBS invite over them?

Simpler answer.

We don't WANT UMass as a full member. They can't bring enough NCAA units or TV to offset the cost of shipping our volleyball and soccer teams there.

We don't WANT Idaho as a full member.

We don't WANT NMSU as a full member (well not 75% of us).

When we started football, MTSU wanted football only, they were told all or nothing. ULM wanted all sports and was told football only or nothing.

There is nothing that demands we treat all who approach equally, we will treat them according to what is best for a membership.

Schools in places like Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri are close enough to help the league with travel. That means they aren't likely to get football only invites. If a school has other positives then all the more reason for the Sun Belt to say no football only.

If we want a warm body to round football out to 12 we can take a school that is already FBS and has $30 million in football upgrades underway.

Imagine you've got a fat roll of money to invest. You go to company A and they have three product lines you like but product 4 is their worst product and they tell you they will only accept your investments in product 4 but you like products 1-3 and can get product 4 from a competitor who already has product 4 and it is on the market while you are still 2 or 3 years from market and you still need some infrastructure improvements and regulatory approval to get 4 on the market.

Why would I invest in 4 from you when I can get it elsewhere and it's already cleared regulatory approval? I'd invest in 1-4 from you because I'm more interested in 1-3 and if 4 pans out to be a good investment then I hit a homerun. I can get a safe scratch single from your competitor and I don't have to do a long-term investment and your competitor isn't a future competitor for me, but you are a potential competitor if you develop product line #4. If you are my potential future competitor why do I want a looser easier to break relationship with you?